Investment Attorney

Broker Spotlight – Mark Lisser Accused of Churning by at Least Three Customers

August 27, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The law office of Gana Weinstein LLP is investigating a string of securities arbitration cases involving broker Mark Lisser (Lisser) which generally allege securities violations including churning, excessive use of margin, churning, unsuitable investments, and breach of fiduciary duty. All the cases have been filed before The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

Lisser was registered with Prestige Financial Center, Inc. from February 2008, until November 2010. Thereafter, he was an associated person with Global Arena Capital Corp.

As a background “churning” occurs in a securities account when a dealer or broker, acting in his own interests and against those of his customer, induces transactions in the customer’s account that are excessive in size and frequency in light of the character of the account. In order to show that churning took place a claimant must demonstrate that the broker-dealer exercised control over the account and that the broker engaged in excessive trading considering the objectives and nature of the account.

Brokerage Firm Safeguard Securities and Peter Mooney Sanctioned Over Numerous Supervisory Failures

August 22, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm Safeguard Securities, Inc. (Safeguard Securities) and broker Peter Mooney (Mooney) concerning allegations that during a FINRA examination of the firm Safeguard Securities provided certain outside business activity (OBA) forms to FINRA that had been backdated. FINRA found that Mooney, who signed the backdated forms, knew or should have known that the forms had been backdated. In addition, FINRA identified many supervisory and recordkeeping failures relating to: the review and retention of electronic communications; outside business activities; private securities transactions; the supervision of producing managers; and branch registration and fingerprinting of personnel.

FINRA found that Mooney was the firm’s principal and supervisor responsible for establishing and implementing supervisory procedures. FINRA alleged that Safeguard Securities, through Mooney, failed to establish and/or implement adequate supervisory procedures in numerous respects. First, it was alleged that the firm failed to establish and implement an adequate supervisory system for the review and retention of electronic communications relating to the business of the firm. For example, between July 14, 2008, and November 4, 2012, it was alleged that Safeguard Securities failed to maintain any record to evidence its review of electronic communications. Further, FINRA alleged that the firm failed to take any steps to monitor registered representatives who used e-mail addresses at domains other than the firm’s e-mail system.

In another instance of supervisory failure, FINRA alleged that during 2012, Mooney knew that a broker by the initials “WM” was engaging in private securities transactions for compensation. Notwithstanding the fact that the firm prohibited such activity, FINRA found that Mooney failed to take any steps to stop the broker’s participation in those transactions. Under NASD Rule 3040, a duty is imposed on member firms to supervise the transaction as if the transaction were executed on behalf of the member.

SEC Releases Alert Warning Investors About Affinity Fraud

August 21, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy issued a Investor Alert to help educate and warn investors about the dangers of affinity fraud. Affinity fraud is a common type of securities fraud that preys upon members of a group or community such as members of certain religions or ethnic communities. Affinity frauds involve either fake investments or extremely risky investments that are conducted outside regular securities channels. The fraudster will typically lie about important details such as the risk of loss, the track record of the investment, or the background of the investment.

Many affinity frauds turn out to be Ponzi schemes. In a Ponzi scheme new investors money goes to pay earlier investors to create the illusion that the investment is succeeding all the while the fraudster skims large amounts of the funds for his or her personal use. When the fraudster’s supply of new investor money runs out and current investors seek payment the scheme collapses. Fraudsters use many legitimate investment sounding vehicles and names to mask their schemes. For example, the fraudster may tell investors that they are investing in real estate, options, precious metals, or employing leverage or other sophisticated investment tools to increase returns.

In order to carry out affinity frauds, the fraudster will be a member of the group they are trying to defraud such as a particular denomination or church. However, any close knit community or group such as an ethnic group, immigrant community, or racial minority will work. Fraudsters may also prey upon members with other commonalities such as teachers, union members, or military servicemen. The key to affinity fraud is that the fraudster can target the group and built up a high level of trust and confidence through the affinity connection to convince them to trust the fraudster with their life savings.

FINRA Sanctions Salomon Whitney Over Non-Traditional ETF Sales Practices

August 13, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The 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.

Gana LLP Files Customer Complaint Against JHS Capital Concerning Broker Joe Alijaj

August 11, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The law office of Gana Weinstein LLP recently filed a securities arbitration on behalf of an investor against JHS Capital Advisors, LLC f/k/a Pointe Capital, Inc. (JHS Capital) concerning allegations that the broker recommended unsuitable investments, churned the account, and ultimately depleted the claimant’s assets.

The claimant is sixty-one years old and spent the majority of his career running seed companies. The claimant alleged that he had little understanding of the stock and bond markets. The complaint alleged that Enver Rahman “Joe” Alijaj (Alijaj), a broker with JHS Capital, cold called claimant and aggressively pursued the opportunity to manage claimant’s money. The complaint alleged that prior to opening his account with JHS, claimant never maintained a brokerage account. The claimant alleged that he explained to Alijaj that he wanted to focus on preservation of his capital.

In reliance on Alijaj’s assurances, the claimant alleged that he provided the broker with a substantial portion of his net worth. Rather than comply with the claimant’s investment needs, the complaint alleged that Alijaj took advantage of the claimant’s inexperience by investing the funds in unreasonably volatile stocks and excessively traded (churned, a type of securities fraud) his account to generate excessive commissions. According to the complaint, within days of opening the account, Alijaj leveraged the account and actively traded speculative small cap stocks in unsuitable investments including A-Power Energy Generation Systems Ltd. (APWR), Silicon Motion Technology Corp (SIMO), and Yingli Green Energy Holdings Co. (YGE).

Gana LLP Files Puerto Rico Municipal Bond Claim Against UBS On Behalf of Client

August 9, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP has recently filed securities arbitration case on behalf of an investor against UBS Financial Services, Inc. and UBS Financial Services, Inc. of Puerto Rico (UBS) involving allegations that UBS’ misleading sales tactics and inappropriate recommendations surrounding Puerto Rico bonds in the Claimant’s portfolio. According to the complaint, UBS encouraged a 26 year-old unemployed single mother to invest her life savings in just three Puerto Rico municipal bonds—Puerto Rico Employees Retirement System Bonds (ERS Bond), Puerto Rico Commonwealth Public Buildings Authority Bonds (Commonwealth Bond), and Puerto Rico Industrial, Tourist, Educational, Medical and Environmental Control Facilities Financing Authority (AFICA) Industrial Revenue Refunding Bonds (AFICA Bond). In addition, the complaint alleged that UBS recommended that the Claimant take out significant loans to leverage up her investment in these three bonds that were all hovering just above junk status.

The Claimant is a 26 year-old single mother, dedicates all of her time towards caring for her eighteen-month-old daughter. Unfortunately, the Claimant’s father passed away in October 2010 causing Claimant to receive life insurance proceeds from his passing. The Claimant used some of those proceeds to pay off the debts that she had accrued over the years and sought to use the remaining portion to invest for the future of her and her daughter.

Claimant alleged that UBS completely disregarded the risks inherent to the Puerto Rico municipal bonds and constructed a portfolio comprised solely of these soon-to-be-defunct securities. Claimant’s brokers Ramon M. Almonte (Almonte) and Juan E. Goytia (Goytia), recommended an approximate 130% concentration, through the use of leverage, in municipal debt. Claimant alleged that the bonds were portrayed as safe, secure, fixed-income securities that would preserve her principal while providing tax-free income. Contrary to UBS’ portrayal, the bonds recommended are volatile investments carrying a multitude of risks. According to the complaint UBS’ unsuitable recommendations and inappropriate asset allocation ultimately cost the Claimant most of her money.

James Applewhite Fined Over Allegations of Unauthorized Discretionary Trading

July 31, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned financial advisor James Applewhite (Applewhite) concerning allegations that from about January 2010, through October 2012, Applewhite exercised discretion by effecting approximately 171 transactions in eight customer accounts without obtaining prior written authorization from the customers and without having the accounts accepted as discretionary accounts as required by NASD Rule 2510(b). FINRA found that the discretion was generally exercised pursuant to a strategy previously agreed upon with the customers. Nonetheless, FINRA alleged the firm did not permit discretionary trading, except for managed accounts, with pre-approved written discretion. As a result FINRA found that Applewhite violated NASD Rule 2510(b) and FINRA Rule 2010.

Applewhite entered the securities industry in November 1983. During all periods mentioned in the FINRA finding he was associated with Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC. Applewhite’s employment with Wells Fargo ended on October 22, 2012. Thereafter, Applewhite became registered with BB&T Securities, L.L.C f/k/a Scott & Stringfellow, LLC.

The allegations made against Applewhite constitute unauthorized trading. Unauthorized trading occurs when a broker sells, buys, or exchanges, securities without the prior consent or authority from the investor. Unless an investor gives discretion to make trades, the broker must first discuss all trades with the investor before executing them. Even if the a customer verbally grants a broker discretion such an agreement is not valid under industry rules The SEC has found that unauthorized trading also constitutes securities fraud due to its fraudulent nature. No omission of information could be more material than the failure to inform the investor of his or her own purchases and sales.

Unsuitable Variable Annuity Sales A Continuing Concern for Regulators

July 18, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

As reported by InvestmentNews, A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) official recently expressed concern over the sale of variable annuities as the products continue to evolve and become more complex. Carlo di Florio, chief risk officer and head of strategy at FINRA was quoted as stating that variable annuities are now taking on features that resemble complex structured products. Structured products typically have features such as caps that limit returns during market rallies and floors that limit losses during market slumps. Now these features are appearing in variable annuity products. Variable annuities are already extremely complex products that are not suitable for all investors. Adding yet an additional level of complexity only heightens concerns that investors must understand what they are buying when they are recommended these vehicles.

As a background variable annuities are complex financial and insurance products. Recently the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released a publication entitled: Variable Annuities: What You Should Know. The SEC encouraged investors considering a purchase of a variable annuity to “ask your insurance agent, broker, financial planner, or other financial professional lots of questions about whether a variable annuity is right for you.”

A variable annuity is a contract an investor makes with an insurance company where the insurer agrees to make periodic payments to you. A variable annuity may be purchased either in a single payment or a series of payments over time. In the annuity account the investor chooses investments and the value of the annuity “varies” over time depending on the performance of the investments chosen. The investment options for variable annuities are generally mutual funds.

Former Sterne Agee Broker Dean Mustaphalli Alleged to Have Wrongfully Run $6 Million Hedge Fund

July 15, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating claims that former Sterne Agee Financial Services Inc. (Sterne Agee) broker Dean Mustaphalli (Mustaphalli) solicited millions of dollars from investors running to run a $6 million hedge fund on the side without formerly disclosing the activity to his brokerage firm. As reported by InvestmentNews, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) charged Mustaphalli for founding and receiving commissions from a hedge fund he created called Mustaphalli Capital Partners in or about 2011 without informing his. Mustaphalli sold the investment through his registered investment advisory firm, Mustaphalli Advisory Group.

According to allegations made, Mustaphalli solicited money for the fund from at least 25 investors over six months during 2011. The fund invested in publicly traded equity and debt securities has since declined by approximately 90% according to investors. At least some of Mustaphalli’s clients were direct customers of Sterne Agee as well. According to FINRA, Mustaphalli was not cooperating with the agencies requests to provide account statements for the hedge fund. Typically in these cases if a broker does not cooperate with FINRA’s department of enforcement and the agency proves he withheld information the broker would be barred from the securities industry among other remedies that could be imposed.

Mustaphalli disclosed the existence of the Mustaphalli Advisory to Sterne Agee but did not disclose that he was managing the hedge fund through the firm according to FINRA. However, under the FINRA rules, brokers must fully disclose hedge funds for approval to their member firm and be supervised by the firm under Rule 3040.

Broker Douglas Cmelik Sanctioned by FINRA Over Soliciting Penny Stock Purchases

July 10, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has sanctioned broker Douglas Cmelik(Cmelik) concerning allegations that Cmelik improperly marked order tickets for penny stock purchases as “unsolicited” when the purchases were solicited. Cmelik’s conduct allegedly violated NASD Conduct Rule 3110 and FINRA Rule 2010.

Penny stocks are securities that carry significant investment risks. A “penny stock” is defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a security issued by a company with less than $100 million in market capitalization. Penny stocks are also often called “low-priced securities” because they typically trade at less than $5 per share. Many penny stocks are very thinly traded and consequently liquidity for the stock can vary day-to-day.

Penny stocks are typically not suitable for many retail investors and consequently many firms prohibit their advisors from soliciting investments in these issuers. First, penny stocks may trade infrequently or very thinly making it difficult to liquidate a penny stock holding. Consequently, penny stocks often fluctuate wildly day-to-day. Penny stocks are often the target of unscrupulous individuals for fraudulent purposes. One scheme employed is the “pump and dump” scheme. In a pump and dump scheme, an unfounded hype for a penny stock the pumper already owns is created to boost the stock price temporarily. The penny stock pumper then sells their shares for a profit causing intense downward pressure on the penny stock and the security quickly loses value. The defrauded investors suffer huge losses as a result of the scheme.