investment lawyer

FINRA Bars Broker David Blasik Concerning Allegations of Outside Business Activities

March 4, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned and barred broker David Blasik (Blasik) concerning allegations that Blasik engage in outside business activities. When the outside business activity also includes the recommendation of investments the activity is referred to in the industry as “selling away.”

FINRA Rule 8210 authorizes the regulator to require persons associated with a FINRA member to provide information with respect to any matter involved in the investigation. In December 2014, FINRA alleged that it pursued an investigation into allegations that Blasik engaged in undisclosed outside business activities. FINRA requested that Blasik provide documents and information to the agency. On December 30, 2014, FINRA stated that Blasik emailed the regulator and stated that he would not provide information or cooperate in the investigation.

According to Blasik’s brokercheck he has disclosed outside business activities including his tax preparation company. Blasik’s disclosures also reveal that he has been employed or involved with Commercial Metal Fabricators, Gateway Sports MGM, and DMH of Ohio, Inc. It is unclear at this time what organization Blasik was involved with that FINRA was investigating.

Wedbush Securities Plagued by Numerous Regulatory Actions Part II

January 20, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

This post continues our examination of the numerous regulatory actions against Wedbush Securities, Inc. (Wedbush) for its failure to supervise the activities of its employees in various respects.

In November 2014, the SEC’s case was settled with Wedbush and two of its top officials have for market access violations. Wedbush settled by admitting wrongdoing in its actions, paying a $2.44 million penalty, and retaining an independent consultant. Wedbush’s former executive vice president Jeffrey Bell (Bell) and senior vice president Christina Fillhart (Fillhart) settled without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings. Bell and Fillhart agreed to pay a combined total of more than $85,000 in disgorgement and penalties. The SEC order found that Wedbush had inadequate risk controls in place before providing customers with access to the market including some anonymous overseas traders.

In a statement, Andrew Ceresney, director of the SEC Enforcement Division stated that “Wedbush acknowledges that it granted access to thousands of overseas traders without having appropriate safeguards in place.”

Broker Spotlight: John J. Quintero Subject to Several Customer Complaints

January 2, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The attorneys of the law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating a series of recently filed complaints against broker John Quintero (Quintero) who is currently a registered representative with Transamerica Financial Advisors. In January 2014, an investor filed a complaint alleging that Quintero misrepresented the premiums paid on a variable universal life insurance policy (VUL). Specifically, the customer claimed that Quintero stated that the premiums paid would be a tax differed investments and that further the sub-account investments were unsuitable.

VULs are complex insurance and investment products that investors must fully understand prior to investing. One feature of a VUL policy is that the investor can allocate a portion of his premium payments to a separate sub-account to invest and grow through mostly mutual fund investments. Monthly charges are assessed for the life insurance policy including a cost of insurance charge and administrative fees all of which are deducted from the policy’s cash value. The investor can suffer losses are receive gains based upon the performance of the sub-account investments. However, the VUL policy can terminate or lapses if at any time the net cash surrender value is insufficient to pay the monthly cost deductions. Upon termination of the policy, the remaining cash value becomes worthless.

Given the costs and premiums involved in purchasing VULs, brokers must be careful to ensure that the recommendation to invest in VULs is suitable for the client. In some cases, investors do not realize the huge expense of these policies and have no way to continue to cover the premiums. When this happens the policy could lapse over time.

FINRA Alleges SWS Financial Services Failed to Supervise Variable Annuity Transactions

December 19, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) filed a complaint against brokerage firm SWS Financial Services, Inc. (SWS Financial) over allegations that from September 2009, to May 2011, SWS Financial had inadequate supervisory systems procedures to supervise its variable annuity (VA) securities business. Specifically, FINRA alleged that SWS Financial: (1) failed to establish and maintain supervisory systems to supervise its VA securities business in violation of NASD and FINRA Rules; (2) failed to implement rules requiring a registered principal review and approval prior to transmission of a VA application to the issuing insurance company for processing and that a registered principal only approve VA transactions that he or she has determined that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the transaction is suitable for the customer; (3) failed to implement surveillance procedures to monitor a broker’s recommended exchanges of VAs to identify inappropriate exchanges; (4) failed to have policies and procedures to implement corrective measures to address inappropriate VA exchanges; and (5) failed to develop and document specific training policies or programs to ensure that principals supervisors who reviewed VA transactions had sufficient knowledge to monitor the transactions.

SWS Financial is a registered broker/dealer since 1986 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. The firm employs 313 registered personnel. From September 2009, to May 2011, SWS Financial derived the majority of its income from its business lines selling equities, mutual funds, variable life insurance or annuities, and municipal securities.

FINRA alleged that from September 2009, to May 2011, SWS Financial derived 16% to 20% of its total revenues from sales of VAs to customers. However, despite this fact, FINRA alleged that SWS Financial failed to establish and implement adequate supervisory systems for this aspect of its securities business. FINRA alleged that the firm’s brokers sold VAs both in branch offices where a registered branch manager was onsite as well as in offices where there was no onsite supervisor. FINRA alleged that the firms procedures required that VA transactions initiated by representatives in branch offices with a branch manager were reviewed and approved by the banch manager and then forwarded to SWS Financial’s home office for final review and approval employees at an affiliated insurance company, Southwest Insurance Agency (Insurance Agency).

Cantella & Co. Accused of Overcharging Client Commissions

December 11, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in an acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC), sanctioned brokerage firm Cantella & Co., Inc. (Cantella) over allegations that from approximately January 2006, to September 2011, the firm charged customers excessive commissions on approximately 1,270 equity transactions and 99 options transactions. FINRA also found that Cantella also failed to establish, maintain, and enforce an adequate supervisory system for the review of commissions charged.

Cantella has been a member of FINRA since 1983, the firm’s principal office is located in Boston, MA, and currently employs approximately 210 registered representatives working out of the principal office and 136 branch offices.

NASD Conduct Rule 2440 provides that all brokerage firms shall buy or sell at a security at a price which is fair, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances. The NASD established a policy that a mark-up of five percent may be deemed unreasonable and this policy applies equally to commissions on agency trades, and to mark-ups or mark-downs on principal transactions. In addition to the commission percentage other factors to be considered in determining the fairness of commission charges include: (i) the type of security involved; (ii) the availability of the security; (iii) the price of the security; (iv) the size of the transaction; (v) whether disclosure of the transaction cost was made to the customer prior to the trade’s execution; (vi) pattern of mark-ups; and (vii) the nature of the member’s business.

FINRA Sanctions Ameriprise Over Arbitration Discovery Abuse Part II

December 2, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

In the prior post we discussed the extremely difficult journey an investor may have to go through in order to obtain relevant discovery documents from the brokerage industry in FINRA arbitration. We also discussed how the system is stacked against the investor’s rights and provides incentives to firms to withhold documents. However, a recent FINRA enforcement order provides some hope that the regulatory watchdog will start taking these issues seriously.

In October 2014, FINRA sanctioned Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. (Ameriprise) and its broker for altering documents and refusing to produce documents until the eve of hearing. FINRA’s action resulted from the discovery tactics employed by Ameriprise and its broker David Tysk (Tysk) in a FINRA arbitration.

In the Ameriprise case, the FINRA arbitrators found the firm’s conduct so egregious that it referred the matter to FINRA’s Member Regulation Department. The arbitration panel found that Ameriprise and Tysk produced documents in an arbitration proceeding without disclosing that Tysk had altered the documents after receiving a complaint letter from a customer. The altered documents were printouts of notes of Tysk’s contacts with the customer having the initials “GR.” Tysk was responsible for detailing his contact with customers in a computer system maintained by Ameriprise.

Gemini Real Estate Advisors Risk Investor Funds in Private Legal Dispute

November 15, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

As reported in InvestmentNews, three members of a real estate partnership that sells private placements in the real estate space are in the middle of a legal dispute that could potentially endanger millions of dollars in loans and investor capital as a result. The dispute is among the owners of Gemini Real Estate Advisors and began earlier this year when William Obeid, one of the partners, asked the other two partners, Christopher La Mack and Dante Massaro, to restructure the company to reflect certain areas of expertise. Those talks soon broke down and have now ended up in court.

Gemini Real Estate Advisors oversees a real estate portfolio of more than $1 billion and was founded in 2003. The complaint alleges that Mr. Obeid abused his position for personal gain through concealed unauthorized transfers of company funds and hiring of family members at inflated salaries. Thereafter, Mr. Obeid filed his own complaint in New York against Mr. La Mack and Mr. Massaro. alleging that the two other Gemini partners had proposed a business divorce and have acted in an effort to freeze him out in order to strengthen their negotiation position in discussions concerning a buyout of Mr. Obeid’s interest.

According to Mr. Obeid’s lawsuit, his partners’ strategy would harm Gemini and investors, by paralyzing Gemini’s operations, causing existing development projects to become distressed, and risk default on more than $97 million in loans and $15 million of investors’ equity.

SEC Approves Changes to Value of Non-Traded REITs on Account Statements

November 6, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved a rule change proposed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) that will give investors greater insight into the costs of purchasing shares of non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs).

As reported by InvestmentNews, the SEC approved FINRA’s proposal on October 10. The rule change would require broker-dealers to include a per-share estimated value for an unlisted direct participation program (DPP) or a REIT on customer statements in addition to other related disclosures. The current practice is to list the value of Non-Traded REITs at a per-share price of $10, or simply the purchase price of the investment.

As a background, a Non-Traded REIT is a security that invests in different types of real estate assets such as commercial real estate properties, residential mortgages of various types, or other specialty niche real estate markets such as strip malls, hotels, and other industries. REITs can be publicly traded and when they are, can be 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 and are illiquid, have no market, and can only be liquidated on terms dictated by the issuer, which may be changed at any time and without prior warning.

FINRA Sanctions Financial America Securities and John Rukenbrod Over Supervisory Failures

October 24, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker Financial America Securities, Inc. (Financial America) and John Rukenbrod (Rukenbrod) concerning allegations that between August 2009, and May 2011, the firm, acting through Rukenbrod, failed to adequately supervise the business being conducted out of one of the firm’s branch offices. FINRA found that the firm: 1) failed to conduct any inspection of the branch office; 2) failed to review any incoming or outgoing e-mails of the three registered representatives operating out of the branch; 3) failed to adequately supervise private securities transactions engaged in by two of the registered representatives; 4) failed to ensure that all electronic communications were captured and retained; 5) failed to create and maintain a written report of inspections of the branch as required; and 6) failed to ensure that the firm’s securities business was supervised by a licensed securities principal.

Financial America has been a FINRA firm since 1970, employs 31 registered representatives, has two branches, and engages in a general securities business. Rukenbrod entered the securities industry in 1966 and cofounded Financial America in 1970.

FINRA alleged that two of Financial America’s representatives initialed “PC” and “CM” engaged in a securities business primarily in the sale of private placement offerings and Rukenbrod was the firm’s designated supervisor. In April 2010, FINRA found that Rukenbrod attended an investor presentation at PC and CM’s branch for a private placement offering. Rukenbrod turned down the offering and stated that the firm would not participate in the offering until certain due diligence procedures were agreed upon.

Top 10 Signs of Investment Fraud

October 20, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Every year dozens of investors contact our firm seeking to recover losses due to sham or bogus investments. Only a fraction of those defrauded people were fortunate enough to working with a licensed broker who wasn’t being properly supervised by their brokerage firm and have recourse to avenues of redress. The other investors are often left with little to no recourse other than to spend additional sums of money on the off chance for recovery.

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission published its “10 Red Flags That an Unregistered Offering May Be a Scam” Most investors do not realize that each and every investment out there must be registered with the SEC or offered through a registration exemption to be legally sold to investors. Yet, billions of dollars are continually pumped into fraudulent and unregistered offerings. The SEC published these top 10 red flags that every investor should be on the look out for.

Claims of High Returns with Little or No Risk – A classic red flag that high returns are around the corner with little or no risk. Every investment carries some degree of risk, and if your advisor can’t point that out to you, then you need to find another broker.