Investment Attorney

Former First Allied Broker Herbert Kaye Suspended for Unauthorized Trading

October 8, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On September 15, 2015 FINRA suspended former First Allied broker, Herbert Leonard Kaye, for four months and fined him $25,000 which includes the disgorgement of $11,000 in commissions. According to FINRA, Mr. Kaye entered over 2,000 discretionary trades in the account of a customer between June 2010 and April 2013 without the customer’s prior written authorization, in violation of FINRA Rule 2010 and 2510(b). 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.”

In June 2010, Mr. Kaye’s customer realized a significant loss on the unsolicited sale of equities that she had inherited from her deceased husband. Following that sale the customer requested that Kaye recommend investments and investment strategies that would limit her exposure to large market fluctuations. The customer, who’s information was not disclosed, gave Mr. Kaye verbal authority to use his discretion to enter trades in her account without contacting her.

According to FINRA, Mr. Kaye did not obtain written authority to trade in her account. Moreover, First Allied’s written policies and procedures prevented discretionary trading except in limited circumstances. Nonetheless, between June 2010 and April 2013, Mr. Kaye executed over 2,000 discretionary trades generating over $173,000 in commissions.

SEC Cracks Down on Wrap Accounts to Prevent “Reverse Churning”

October 6, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

A recent InvestmentNews article explored The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) attempts to prevent conflicts of interest at registered investment advisers, a breach of their fiduciary duties, by focusing on potential misuse of popular flat-fee wrap accounts. The use of these accounts have given rise to claims of “reverse churning.” As we previously reported, “churning” is excessive trading activity or in a brokerage account. Churning trading activity has no utility for the investor and is conducted solely to generate commissions for the broker. By contrast “reverse churning” is the practice of placing investors in advisory accounts or wrap programs that pay a fixed fee, such as 1-2% annually, but generate little or no activity to justify that fee. Such programs constitute a form of commission and fee “double-dipping” in order to collect additional fees.

The SEC is looking into the practice by which clients pay an annual or quarterly fee for wrap products that manage a portfolio of investments. Investment advisors who place clients in such programs already charge fees based on assets under management (AUM) and the money management charges for wrap products are in addition to the AUM fee. According to InvestmentNews, the assets under these arrangements totaled $3.5 trillion in 2013, a 25% increase from 2012. Included in these numbers include separately managed accounts, mutual fund advisory programs, exchange-traded-fund (ETF) advisory programs, unified managed accounts, and two types of brokerage-based managed accounts.

Reverse churning can occur under these arrangements if there’s too little trading in the accounts in order to justify the high fees. In August, the SEC’s scrutiny of these products came to the forefront with the agency’s victory in a court case that revolved in part around an adviser’s improperly placing his clients into wrap programs. A jury decided in the SEC’s favor against the advisory firm Benjamin Lee Grant that the SEC argued improperly induced clients to follow him when he left the broker-dealer Wedbush Morgan Securities to his advisory firm, Sage Advisory Group.

Gana LLP is Investigating Benjamin F. Edwards in connection with the Firm’s Supervision of Aon Miller

October 3, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Gana Weinstein LLP, a nationally recognized securities arbitration boutique, is investigating Benjamin F. Edwards & Company, Inc. (“BFE”) in connection with the firm’s supervision of its former registered representative Aon D. Miller.

From November 2011 through September 2012, it is alleged that Aon D. Miller, participated in five different securities transactions with three different entities in which four of his customers invested a total of approximately $1,550,000. According to FINRA, who is also investigating Mr. Miller, he failed to inform Benjamin F. Edwards of his outside business activities as he was required to do. Aon Miller allegedly participated in three separate entities outside of his employment with Benjamin F. Edwards. The three entities at issue are: i) CDP, a real estate development company; KBI, a specialty chemical company, and iii) CTL, a company that refinanced senior secured debt.

According to FINRA, the above mentioned transactions resulted in a violation of FINRA Rule 2010 and and selling away, a violation of FINRA Rule 3040. FINRA Rule 2010 states in relevant part that “A member, in the conduct of its business, shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.” FINRA Rule 3040 states in relevant part that “prior to participating in any private securities transaction, an associated person shall provide written notice to the member with which he is associated describing in detail the proposed transaction and the person’s proposed role therein…”

FINRA Suspends former Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Broker Travis Shannon for Failing to Divulge Information

October 2, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On August 25, 2014, FINRA suspended Travis S. Shannon, of Santa Barbara, California, formerly of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney. According to FINRA, from July 2010 through June 2013, Mr. Shannon engaged in two outside business activities without first providing written notice to Morgan Stanley, in violation of FINRA Rule 2010, 3030, and 3270. 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.” All members are bound to maintain high standards and according to FINRA Mr. Shannon fell short of that standard.

FINRA Rule 3030 states that “No person associated…shall be employed by, or accept compensation from, any other person as a result of any business activity…outside the scope of his relationship with his employer firm, unless he has provided prompt written notice to the member.” This activity is known as selling away. Mr. Shannon was employed as a financial advisor with Morgan Stanley from September 2008 through July 2013 when he was allowed to voluntarily resign from the firm due to FINRA’s regulatory action. According to FINRA, Mr. Shannon participated in private sales of $1,885,000 worth of securities, including securities issued by his outside business activities. Mr. Shannon also failed to timely update his U4 registration form to timely report two bankruptcy filings.

In June 2010, Mr. Shannon first began to participate in the private sales of securities issued by TC, a company that bought and sold used computer network equipment. Mr. Shannon referred eight customers to this company including four Morgan Stanley customers. Those eight purchases totaled $775,000 in investments with commissions of $77,500 to Mr. Shannon. In July 2010, Mr. Shannon co-founded AAI or Aerobat Aviation, Inc., a start-up company that was to design and produce unmanned aerial vehicles. In 2012 and 2013 Mr. Shannon participated in the private sale of $500,000 worth of Aerobat Aviation Inc. stock.

Gana LLP is Investigating LPL Financial broker, Kenneth W. Schulz for Improper Conduct

September 30, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On September 11, 2014, FINRA, permanently barred Kenneth W. Schulz, a former broker of LPL Financial from associating with any FINRA member. According to the Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent, in June 2013, Kenneth W. Schulz directed a registered assistant to impersonate six of Schulz’s former customers in phone calls to his prior firm requesting that the customers’ accounts be liquidated so that they could invest through Schulz at his new firm Commonwealth Financial network.

Schulz informed each of his customers that their securities holdings could be transferred “in kind” to accounts with Commonwealth. The customers agreed to transfer their securities to Commonwealth and authorized Schulz to initiate the transfers.

After the customers agreed to transfer the securities, Schulz learned that the customers’ securities could not be transferred in kind because the managed funds were proprietary to LPL Financial. Rather than inform his customers that the securities had to be liquidated before their funds could be transferred, Schulz had his assistant pretend to be the customers and had the accounts liquidated without customer consent.

Choosing the Right Securities Arbitration Attorney

September 29, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

When to Call a Securities Arbitration Attorney

Securities arbitration attorneys, sometimes referred to as investment attorneys, FINRA attorneys, or securities attorneys, should be contacted whenever an investor believes he or she has been a victim of broker misconduct. An investor may have cause to retain a securities fraud attorney to file a lawsuit or arbitration claim if his or her broker failed to create a suitable investment strategy. An investor may also want to contact an attorney case if a broker made false or misleading statements about a security or omitted negative information about the risk of a security in order to persuade the investor to invest.

An investor may also want to seek legal counsel the investor’s broker bought or sold securities without prior consent (unauthorized trading) or excessively traded securities for the purpose generating commissions (churning).

FINRA Suspends Financial Advisor Over Unsuitable Variable Universal Life (VUL) Sales Practices

September 25, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker James Moniz (Moniz) concerning allegations that while registered with Signator Investors, Inc. (Signator) Moniz made unsuitable recommendations to a married couple that they purchase a Variable Universal Life insurance policy (VUL) on the husband’s life and use the proceeds of a reverse mortgage to purchase a variable annuity and open a managed investment account. According to FINRA, after the insurance company questioned the VUL application, Moniz caused the application to be re-submitted with changed or added information without first informing the customers of his actions. FINRA found that Moniz also inaccurately represented the source of funds for the variable annuity and managed account.

VUL are complex dual part insurance and investment products that investors must fully understand the risks and benefits of prior to investing. One feature of a VUL policy is that the owner can allocate a portion of his premium payments to a separate sub-account that can be used to grow in value through investments. The other part of the investment is the life insurance policy where the policies monthly charges including a cost of insurance charge and administrative fees are deducted from the policy’s cash value. The cash value of the policy may increase or decrease based on the performance of the selected investments. However, customers must be careful in purchasing VULs because the policy terminates, or lapses, if at any time the net cash surrender value is insufficient to pay the monthly cost deductions. When the policy terminates the remaining cash value becomes worthless.

Given the costs involved in purchasing VULs, brokers must be careful to ensure that the recommendation to invest in VULs is suitable for the client. While an investor may be able to afford the initial purchase price of the policy it may be too expensive for the client to continue to make premium contributions over time causing the policy to lapse.

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.

UBS Preparing to Face Investor Claims Over Puerto Rico Bond Funds

September 23, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

According to UBS’ second quarter earnings report, the bank is now looking at over $600 million in claims brought by Puerto Rico investors, who have suffered significant losses related to their investments in closed-end bond funds. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has been inundated with a plethora of claims in connection with the closed-end UBS Puerto Rico Bond Funds. Investors are looking to be made whole after they purportedly received misleading information regarding these investments. While the majority of the claims were filed against UBS Financial Services of Puerto, other firms, including Merrill Lynch, Banco Popular, Santander Securities, and Oriental Financial Services have also been named as Respondents in many of the claims.

UBS recognizes the perilous situation that it now faces with respect to these claims, explaining, “declines in the market prices of Puerto Rico municipal bonds and of UBS Puerto Rico sole-managed and co-managed closed-end funds since August 2013 have led to multiple regulatory inquiries, as well as customer complaints and arbitrations with aggregate claimed damages exceeding [$]600 million filed by clients in Puerto Rico who own those securities.”

Some of the claims that UBS face, including clients represented by our firm, include allegations of unsuitability, over-concentration, fraud, and breach of contract among others. FINRA and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board require broker dealers to have a reasonable basis to support the suitability of their recommendations to customers. Legal representatives for many claimants have said that the UBS employees prioritized commissions when they sold the closed-end bond funds to Puerto Rican investors, who were not economically equipped to make those investments.

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.