investment fraud attorney

Broker Eric Johnson Terminated for Allegedly Stealing Over $1,000,000 From Investors

November 24, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in an acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC) barred broker Eric Johnson (Johnson) concerning allegations that Johnson misappropriated more than $1,000,000 from at least six firm customers’ brokerage accounts. FINRA also alleged that Johnson falsified the signatures of two firm employees and notarized seals on firm documents. Finally, Johnson failed to provide documents, information, and on-the-record testimony during FINRA’s investigation of this matter.

Johnson first became registered with FINRA in 1991. In March 1999, Johnson became registered with RedRidge Securities, Inc. (RedRidge). Johnson operates out of his DBA business called HD Brent & Company (HD Brent). RedRidge terminated Johnson’s registration on September 24, 2014, in connection with the firm’s investigation concerning the alleged theft of customer funds. RedRidge may have only become aware of the misappropriation of funds when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) contacted the firm concerning their investigation of Johnson.

FINRA alleged that from approximately December 2006, through September 2014, Johnson misappropriated more than $1,000,000 in customer funds. FINRA determined that Johnson made at least 60 wire transfers from at least six firm customers’ brokerage accounts to his own personal bank accounts. The wire transfers required the signature of a firm principal and the signature and seal of the firm’s notary public that FINRA alleged Johnson falsified in order to effectuate the transfers. Given that Johnson’s activities took place over the course of eight years it is astonishing that RedRidge did not supervise and detect Johnson’s activities sooner.

Illinois Files Churning Complaint Against James Markoski

November 18, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

James Markoski (Markoski) recently had a complaint filed against him from the State of Illinois, Securities Department. According to the complaint Markoski has a history of churning accounts, or engaging in excessive trading that is designed to generate huge commissions at the expense of the customer.

Markoski’ entered the financial industry in the early 1970’s and until 1991, Markoski worked for Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (Merrill). Thereafter, from September 1991, through June 2010, Markoski was a registered representative of David A Noyes & Company. From June 2010, through April 2012, Markoski worked for Birkelbach Investment Securities, Inc. Finally, Markoski currently is associated with Forest Securities, Inc. Markoski has been subject to 9 customer arbitrations throughout his career. Virtually all of the customer complaints involve claims of churning and excessive trading activity in the customer’s account. It is rare for a broker to have a complaint filed against them. It is even more rare for a broker to have more than 2 complaints filed against them.

The Illinois Secretary of State alleged that Markoski alleged that Markoski has a penchant for targeting widows and senior women to engage in his fraudulent churning conduct. In one of the alleged churning instances, Markoski inherited a client’s account from one of his colleagues. The complaint alleges that upon inheriting the client’s account, Markoski began selling off the client’s bond holdings that the client was relying upon the income from. The selling of the bonds before maturity allegedly resulted in $175,000 in losses.

Stifel Nicolaus Broker Robert Head Terminated and Barred for Unauthorized Trading

November 14, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in an acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC) and barring former Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (Stifel Nicolaus) broker Robert Head (Head) concerning allegations that between August 2013, and October 2013, Head exercised discretion, aka unauthorized trading, in the account of a customer without obtaining the customer’s prior written consent in violation of NASD Conduct Rule 2510(b) and FINRA Rule 2010. In addition, FINRA alleged that Head recommended transactions to the same customer between January 2010, and October 2013, that were qualitatively and quantitatively unsuitable for the customer.

From August 2008, until January 2014, Head was registered with Stifel Nicolaus. Since that time, Head has not been registered with any brokerage firm. In December 2013, Head was discharged from Stifel Nicolaus for alleged violation of the firm’s policy regarding exercising discretion in a client’s account without written authorization.

According to FINRA, Head managed a Stifel Nicolaus trust account for a customer from August 2008, until October 2013. The customer was retired with an original account application listing investment objectives of “Growth and Income” and “Speculation / Active Trading / Complex Strategies.” FINRA found that in November 2009, the account’s investment objective was changed to identify only ”Speculation / Active Trading / Complex Strategies.” FINRA found that the customer never gave Head written authorization to exercise his own discretion for her account.

Gana LLP Investigates Investor Claims of Churning at Global Arena Capital and Whitewood Group

November 12, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The law office of Gana Weinstein LLP is investigating a string of securities arbitration cases involving brokers associated or formerly associated with Global Arena Capital Corp (Global Arena) and Whitewood Group, Inc (Whitewood Group). Two such brokers include Mark Lisser (Lisser) and Benjamin Brown Jr. (Brown).

FINRA recently brought an action against Brown alleging that between October 19, 2012, and December 10, 2012, while registered with Whitewood Group, Brown effected 30 transactions while exercising discretion without written authorization in a customer’s account. From August 2011, until November 2011, Brown was associated with Global Arena. Thereafter, from February 2012, through May 2013, Brown was registered with Whitewood Group. Finally, from May 2013 until December 2013, Brown was associated with Salomon Whitney LLC. Brown has had two customer complaints filed against him, both alleged churning and unsuitable investments.

In FINRA’s action against Brown, it is against the industry’s rules for a registered representative to exercise any discretionary power in a customer’s account unless such customer has given prior written authorization and the account has been accepted by the member in writing. FINRA found that between October 19, 2012, and December 10, 2012, Brown effected 30 option transactions while exercising discretion in one customer’s account without the customer’s prior written authorization to exercise discretion to engage in discretionary trading.

FINRA Declines Rule Requiring Brokerage Firms To Carry Insurance

November 5, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

According to a recent report, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has decided it cannot force firms to carry insurance for payment of awards granted by arbitration panels on behalf of investors who have lost money.

As a background, every investor who opens a brokerage account with an investment firm agrees to arbitrate their dispute before the FINRA. Even if an investor did not open an account with a brokerage firm the claim can still be arbitrated under the industries rules. FINRA is the investment industries self-regulatory organization for all brokerage firms operating in the United States, overseeing approximately 4,700 brokerage firms and 635,000 registered representatives. FINRA both enforces its own rules through regulatory actions and administers an arbitration forum for securities disputes.

Our firm has noticed a recent trend where small and even mid-sized firms fail to keep sufficient funds on hand to pay investors due to misconduct at the firm. These smaller firms sometimes fail to enact proper supervisory procedures and regulatory controls to prevent their brokers from engaging in wrongful conduct. Sometimes these firms simply do not have the resources to properly engage in the securities business lines they attempt to engage in. As a result investors are harmed and due to their small size, cannot be compensated. In 2012, brokerage firms failed to pay $50 million in awards to customers. In 2011, the number of unpaid awards totaled $51 million.

Ismail Elmas Admits to Stealing Over $1 Million From Investors

November 3, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

As we reported earlier, broker Ismail Elmas’ (Elmas) Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) BrokerCheck records show that 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…”

Thereafter, investors have come forward to complain that Elmas allegedly engaged in unauthorized activity and other wrongful acts. Then in late October, Elmas pleaded guilty in federal court in Alexandria, to a count of wire fraud. Elmas admitted that he bilked at least 10 investors out of $1 million to $7 million dollars. According to news sources, Assistant U.S. Attorney Chad Golder said in court that Elmas, whose d/b/a business Apple Financial Services, an affiliate of Apple Federal Credit Union, preyed upon elderly and widowed investors and used a variety of methods to hide stolen funds. One of the more salient aspects of Elmas’ fraud is that unlike many schemers, Elmas was not promising large or sky-high returns or pushing clients into complicated financial products.

Our firm represents investors who are the victims of schemes, like Elmas’, to hold the brokerage firm responsible. The brokerage firms that employ Elmas are responsible for supervising his conduct. Elmas’ scheme presents a classic “selling away” securities violation scenario. In selling away cases, a financial advisor solicits investments in companies, promissory notes, or private placements that were not approved by the broker’s affiliated firm. 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. When selling away activity occurs, it is often because the supervisory environment is deficient because the brokerage firm either fails to put in place a reasonable supervisory system or fails to actually implement that system and meet supervisory requirements.

Broker Stephen Campbell Sanctioned Over Churning Claim

October 31, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker Stephen Campbell (Campbell) concerning allegations that the broker engaged in churning in a client account. Campbell has been a broker since 1978. From November 12, 2004 through November 12, 2013, Campbell was registered with Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. (Oppenheimer).

Investment churning is trading activity characterized by purchasing and selling activity that is excessive and serves no practical purpose for the investor. Brokers engage in churning solely to generate commissions without regard for the client’s interests. In order to establish a churning claim the investor must show that the trading was first excessive and second that the broker had control over the investment strategy. 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.

In Campbell’s case, FINRA found that one of his customers was a 55 year old single mother who initially opened an account with Campbell in 2000. FINRA alleged that from January 2009, through September 2011, while exercising control over her accounts, Campbell excessively and unsuitable traded her accounts inconsistently with her investment objectives, financial situation and needs. FINRA determined that the trading activity resulted in an annualized turnover ratio of 15 and an annualized cost-to-equity ratio of 59% in her IRA account, and an annualized turnover ratio of 21 and an annualized cost-to-equity ratio of 120% in her individual account. During this period, FINRA determined that Campbell’s improper trading resulted in a collective loss of approximately $62,000, while generating total gross commissions of approximately $64,000.

FINRA Files Complaint Against Toni Chen Over Failure to Respond to Inquiries Relating to a Pyramid Scheme

October 27, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) brought a complaint against broker Toni Chen (Chen) concerning allegations that during the course of FINRA’s investigation into whether Chen was involved in a pyramid scheme that may also constitute “selling away” activities. Chen failed to respond to FINRA’s requests.

On October 18, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a Form U6 with FINRA regarding Chen’s activities disclosing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York had granted the SEC’s request for a temporary restraining order for an asset freeze and other emergency relief against Chen and other defendants. The SEC restraining order is in connection with an ongoing worldwide investment pyramid scheme targeting members of the Asian-American Community. Thereafter, FINRA commenced its own investigation into whether Chen while registered with a FINRA firm or had engaged in any violations of the securities laws. Until April 2012, Chen was registered with World Group Securities, Inc. Thereafter, and until August 2012, Chen was associated with Transamerica Financial Advisors, Inc. (Transamerica).

FINRA alleged that it made numerous requests seeking information and testimony from Chen. In spite of FINRA’s numerous requests, Chen failed to provide testimony and certain information requested by staff. Due to Chen’s failure to provide documents, FINRA brought the instant complaint.

FINRA Bars Broker Joseph Pappalardo Over Allegations of Sales of Coast-2-Coast Properties Securities to Customers

October 24, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) barred broker Joseph Pappalardo (Pappalardo) concerning allegations that between August 2008, and August 2012, Pappalardo, while associated with Financial Network Investment Corporation (n/k/a Cetera Advisor Network LLC), made fraudulent and misleading misrepresentations to a customer in the sale of private securities, converted customer funds for his personal use, engaged in private securities transactions (a/k/a “selling away”), failed to disclose several outside business activities, and failed to amend his U4.

Pappalardo joined Financial Network Investment Corporation in 2008 and was required to complete a several questionnaires including disclosures of outside business activities. In 2008, FINRA alleged that Pappalardo disclosed on the questionnaire that he had previously been involved with a real estate company he formed in 2003 called Coast-2-Coast Properties (C2C) that was in the business of buying, renovating, and selling houses but that the company was no longer in business. FINRA alleged that Pappalardo’s statement was false. In fact, FINRA found that Pappalardo was involved in several outside business activities that he failed to disclose to Cetera including ongoing involvement in C2C and its marketing arm Prosperity Financial Estate Planning and Insurance Services (Prosperity Financial).

Thereafter, FINRA found that Pappalardo solicited customers to invest in these businesses. In one instance, FINRA found that Pappalardo solicited the sale of a $100,000 investment in Prosperity Financial which Pappalardo converted for his personal use. In total, FINRA found that Pappalardo solicited C2C to at least 6 customers and purported to offer investors 12% interest returns on profits generated by the business. FINRA found that the investors did not actually own any portion of the real estate properties held by C2C but instead were to receive interest returns on profits from Pappalardo and the business. FINRA found that by engaging in the C2C private securities Pappalardo violated the FINRA rules.

Broker Edward Wendol Barred by FINRA Over Failure to Respond to Outside Business Activity Inquiries

October 16, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) barred broker Edward Wendol (Wendol) concerning allegations that during the course of FINRA’s investigation into whether Wendol was involved in undisclosed outside business and private securities transactions, also known as “selling away”, Wendol failed to respond to FINRA’s requests. On May 29, 2014, FINRA requested that Wendol provide documents and information. On June 16, 2014, Wendol informed FINRA that he would not provide the requested documents and information or appear and provide testimony. As a result, Wendol was barred from the securities industry.

Wendol first became registered with FINRA in 1993 with South Richmond Securities, Inc. From October 1993, through October 2009, Wendol was registered with seven different FINRA member firms. On December 5, 2011, Wendol registered with Sterling Enterprises Group, Inc. (Sterling). Thereafter, from September 2013, through July 2014, Wendol was associated with WTS Proprietary Trading Group LLC.

The allegations against Wendol are consistent with a “selling away” securities violation. In such a case, the broker sells private securities away from the firm because the investment is 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 fact, each brokerage firm is required to establish and maintain a system to supervise the activities of each registered representative that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the securities laws. Selling away often occurs when supervisory lapse conditions exist. Supervisory lapses include either the failure to put in place a reasonable supervisory system or a failure to implement their supervisory requirements. Many times there obvious “red flags” of misconduct that are overlooked or not properly followed up on.