Investment Attorney

Broker Investigation: Aegis Capital Advisor Damian Mamane

September 1, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Damian Mamane (Mamane) has been the subject of at least one customer complaint. The customer complaint against Mamane alleges that the broker made unsuitable investments in equity and penny stock securities.

Mamane entered the securities industry in 2001. From September 2009, until April 2014, Mamane was registered with IAA Financial LLC. Since March 2014, Mamane has been associated with Aegis Capital Corp.

Advisers have an obligation to deal fairly with investors and that obligation includes making suitable investment recommendations. In order to make suitable recommendations the broker must have a reasonable basis for recommending the product or security based upon the broker’s investigation of the investments properties including its costs, benefits, risks, tax consequences, and other relevant factors. In addition, the broker must also understand the customer’s specific investment objectives to determine whether or not the specific product or security being recommended is appropriate for the customer based upon their needs.

Massachusetts Files Complaints Against Securities American and Its Broker Barry Armstrong

August 31, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Massachusetts Office of the Secretary of Securities Division filed complaints against brokerage firm Securities America, Inc. (Securities America) and one of its financial advisors Barry Armstrong (Armstrong) concerning allegations that in 2014, Securities America authorized Armstrong to run a deceptive AM radio advertising campaign. According to the complaint, the advertising campaign was designed to target vulnerable Massachusetts senior citizens by trumpeting the looming dangers of Alzheimer’s disease and implying that the brokerage firm has special access to medical information and support.

Massachusetts found that the advertising campaign was a classic “bait and switch” in which callers inquired about Alzheimer’s support and information and instead were solicited solely for brokerage and financial planning services. Massachusetts found that advertising used alarmist language designed to pull in senior citizens with concerns about Alzheimer’s disease while failing to disclose the nature of the services Armstrong actually offers. Indeed, when callers contact the number provided the only information concerning Alzheimer’s that is provided is a Fact Sheet published by the National Institute of the Aging and some other publicly available free information about Alzheimer’s.

Massachusetts found Securities America’s approval of the advertising used “astounding” stating that as a national-scale broker-dealer the firm failed to make “substantive comment or follow up of any kind” when reviewing Armstrong’s advertising materials. In sum, Massachusetts alleged that “Securities America failed to prevent or even flag glaringly unethical conduct.”

Broker Spotlight: TIC Customer Complaints Against Mark Kosanke

August 26, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Mark Kosanke (Kosanke) has been the subject of at least two customer complaints. The customer complaints against Kosanke allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments and misrepresentations and false statements among other claims. The securities involved in the customer disputes are tenants-in-common (TICs).

Kosanke entered the securities industry in 1994. From 2000, until July 2006, Kosanke was registered with Questar Capital Corporation. From July 2006, until August 2010, Kosanke was associated with Professional Asset Management, Inc. Thereafter, from August 2010, Kosanke was registered with brokerage firm Concorde Investment Services, LLC.

As a background, TICs largely been sold unfairly as tax advantaged products that allow customers to defer capital gains taxes on appreciated real estate. TICs are private placements that have no secondary trading market and are therefore illiquid investments. In a typical TIC, the investor receives a fractional interest in the property along with other stakeholders and 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. Because these fees are often higher than 15%, there is often no way for the investment to be profitable for the investor.

Voya Financial Advisors to Stop Selling L Share Annuities Over Suitability Concerns

August 19, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

InvestmentNews has reported that brokerage firm Voya Financial Advisors (Voya) changed its variable annuity selling policies by restricting the sale of contracts known as “L share” annuity contracts if the contract include riders. The change comes due to increasing pressure from regulators concerned about the products’ suitability for investors. The firm has 2,200 brokers that would be effected by the new policy.

Voya stated in the article that “We feel strongly that it is in the best interests of our advisers and their clients to make this change to Voya Financial Advisors’ suitability policy.” The firm stated that the product has been scraped “in order to best serve the retirement readiness and long-term planning needs of our customers.”

L-shares charged higher ongoing fees in exchange for a shorter time frame for withdraw penalties, known as surrender charges. However, the L-shares when combined with riders that come with even extra costs that make the product even more expensive. The riders are added for a variety of reasons including to reduce market risk or modify death benefits.

FINRA Bars Former H.D. Vest Broker Richard Whitley

August 18, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Richard Whitley (Whitley) has been the subject of at least 13 customer complaints and one regulatory action that has resulted in Whitley being barred. FINRA launched an investigation into claims that Whitley recommended unsuitable investments to customers. In addition, to the regulatory bar from the agency, customer complaints against Whitley allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentations and false statements, among other claims

Whitley entered the securities industry in 1982. From 1992, until August 2014, Whitley was registered with H.D. Vest Investment Services (HD Vest). In June 2015, Whitley was barred by FINRA from the financial services industry after failing to respond to the agencies investigation into claims

Advisers have an obligation to deal fairly with investors and that obligation includes making suitable investment recommendations. In order to make suitable recommendations the broker must have a reasonable basis for recommending the product or security based upon the broker’s investigation of the investments properties including its costs, benefits, risks, tax consequences, and other relevant factors. In addition, the broker must also understand the customer’s specific investment objectives to determine whether or not the specific product or security being recommended is appropriate for the customer based upon their needs.

FINRA Bars Former Morgan Stanley Advisor Justin Amaral

August 13, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Justin Amaral (Amaral) has been barred for failing to respond to requests for information by the agency. The requests may have related to the reasons Morgan Stanley gave for terminating Amaral’s employment. Upon termination from Morgan Stanley the firm filed a Uniform Termination form (Form U5) stating that the reason for the firm’s termination of Amaral was due to allegations by the firm that Amaral became an executor and beneficiary in a client’s estate and that he used discretionary authority in several client accounts.

In addition, to the most recent FINRA action and bar, Amaral has been the subject of at least two customer complaints involving unsuitable closed-end funds and misrepresentations of investments involving mutual funds. According to FINRA, the agency made attempts to have Amaral appear for testimony concerning an unstated matter. Amaral failed to appear and was consequently barred from the securities industry.

It is important for investors to know that all advisers have an obligation and responsibility to deal fairly with investors including making suitable investment recommendations. In order to make suitable recommendations the broker must have a reasonable basis for recommending the product or security based upon the broker’s investigation of the investments properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, and other relevant factors. In addition, the broker must also understand the customer’s specific investment objectives to determine whether or not the specific product or security being recommended is appropriate for the customer based upon their needs.

Controversy Over Non-Traded REITs: Should These Products Be Sold to Investors? Part II

August 11, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

This post continues our investigation into whether or not brokerage firms have a basis to continue to sell non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs). Non-Traded REIT sales have exploded becoming the latest it product of Wall Street. However, experts and regulators have begun to question the basis for selling these products. And if Non-Traded REITs are to be sold, should there be a limit on the amount a broker can recommend.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Craig McCann, president of Securities Litigation & Consulting Group, a research and consulting company, “Nontraded REITs are costing investors, especially elderly, retired, unsophisticated investors, billions. They’re suffering illiquidity and ignorance, and earning much less than what they ought to be earning.” In conclusion, “No brokerage should be allowed to sell these things.”

According to his analysis, shareholders have lost about $50 billion for having put money into Non-Traded REITs rather than publicly exchange-traded funds. The data comes from a study of the difference between the performance of more than 80 Non-Traded REITs and the performance of a diversified portfolio of traded REITs over two decades. The study found that the average annual rate of return of Non-Traded REITs was 5.2%, compared with 11.9% for the Vanguard REIT Index Fund.

FINRA Bars Former Securities America Broker Judith Woodhouse

August 10, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Judith Woodhouse (Woodhouse) has been barred for failing to respond to requests for information by the agency. The requests may have related to the reasons Securities America, Inc. (Securities America) gave for terminating Woodhouse’s employment. Upon termination from Securities America the firm filed a Uniform Termination form (Form U5) stating that the reason for the firm’s termination of Woodhouse was due to allegations by the firm that Woodhouse violated the firm’s policies relating to the borrowing of funds and responding to supervisory requests.

In addition, to the most recent FINRA action and bar, Woodhouse has been the subject of at least one customer complaint involving a private placement. In addition, Woodhouse has several financial disclosures and two regulatory actions. Another FINRA action in 2013, concerned Woodhouse’s involvement in private securities transactions totally over $500,000 that were made without Securities America’s consent. This action resulted in a $10,000 fine and three month suspension.

It is important for investors to know that all advisers have an obligation and responsibility to deal fairly with investors including making suitable investment recommendations. In order to make suitable recommendations the broker must have a reasonable basis for recommending the product or security based upon the broker’s investigation of the investments properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, and other relevant factors. In addition, the broker must also understand the customer’s specific investment objectives to determine whether or not the specific product or security being recommended is appropriate for the customer based upon their needs.

Controversy Over Non-Traded REITs: Should These Products Be Sold to Investors? Part I

August 10, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

As longtime readers of our blog know we have reported numerous instances of sales and other practice violations regarding how brokers and brokerage firms sell non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs). See list of articles below. As Non-Traded REITs have become the latest darling product of the financial industry experts and regulators have begun to question the basis for selling these products. And if Non-Traded REITs are to be sold, should there be a limit on the amount a broker can recommend.

As a background, a Non-Traded REIT is a security that invests in different types of real estate assets such as commercial, residential, or other specialty niche real estate markets such as strip malls, hotels, storage, and other industries. There are publicly traded REITs that are bought and sold on an exchange with similar liquidity to traditional assets like stocks and bonds. However, Non-traded REITs are sold only through broker-dealers, are illiquid, have no or limited secondary market and redemption options, and can only be liquidated on terms dictated by the issuer, which may be changed at any time and without prior warning.

Investors are also often ignorant to several other facts that would warn against investing in Non-Traded REITs. First, only 85% to 90% of investor funds actually go towards investment purposes. In other words, investors have lost up to 15% of their investment to fees and costs on day one in a Non-Traded REIT. Second, often times part or almost all of the distributions that investors receive from Non-Traded REITs include a return of capital and not actual revenue generated from the properties owned by the REIT. The return of capital distributions reduces the ability of the REIT to generate income and/or increases the investment’s debt or leverage.

FINRA Sanctions Morgan Stanley and Scottrade for Failing to Supervise Customer Transfers to Third-Party Accounts

August 9, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) issued a press release concerning two settlements fining Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC (Morgan Stanley) $650,000 and Scottrade, Inc. $300,000 for failing to implement reasonable supervisory systems to monitor the transmittal of customer funds to third-party accounts. The settlements included allegations that both firms had weak supervisory systems after FINRA examination teams reviewed the firms in 2011, but neither took necessary steps to correct the supervisory gaps.

Brad Bennett, Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement, was quoted in the press release as stating that, “Firms must have robust supervisory systems to monitor and protect the movement of customer funds. Morgan Stanley and Scottrade had been alerted to significant gaps in their systems by FINRA staff, yet years went by before either firm implemented sufficient corrective measures.”

In the Morgan Stanley settlement, FINRA alleged that from October 2008, to June 2013, three Morgan Stanley brokers in two different branch offices converted a total of $494,400 from thirteen customers by creating fraudulent wire transfer orders and checks to third-party accounts. In one example, the brokers moved funds from multiple customer accounts to their own personal bank accounts. FINRA found that in these instances Morgan Stanley’s supervisory systems and procedures to review and monitor transmittals of customer funds through wire transfers were not reasonable and could not detect multiple customer account transfers to the same third-party accounts and outside entities. In sum, FINRA found that the supervisory failures allowed the conversions to go undetected.