LPL Financial

Former LPL Financial Broker Donald Dahn Sanctioned Over Private Loans to Customers

February 10, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Broker Donald R. Dahn (Dahn) has been barred by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) concerning allegations that he privately borrowed money from at least two customers, an act constituting securities fraud, while being a registered representative of Mutual Service Corporation (MSC) and LPL Financial LLC (LPL).

Dahn entered the securities industry in September 1991, as an Investment Company and Variable Contracts Products Representative (Series 6) license holder. A Series 6 license allows a broker to recommend only a limited number of securities including variable annuities and open-end mutual funds. From 1998 through 2009, Dahn was associated with MSC. In 2009, MSC was acquired by LPL and Dahn became registered with LPL until his termination in April 2013. On April 29, 2013, LPL submitted a Form U5 for Dahn.

Dahn has a long history of customer disputes and FINRA regulatory actions. On December 5, 2012, FINRA found that Dahn violated FINRA rules by borrowing a total of $240,000 from three customers while he was employed with MSC and failing to obtain approval from his member firm for the loans. At that time Dahn was suspended from the industry for six months. In addition, there have been six customer disputes filed against Dahn. The majority of the complaints involve allegations that clients loaned Dahn funds to keep his business operating. At least one complaint alleges that Dahn made unsuitable variable annuity switches.

FINRA Bars LPL Financial Broker for Falsifying Documents

January 7, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On December 13, 2013, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. (FINRA) barred Gary Chackman after he allegedly falsified company documents to evade procedures and protocol, which caused an overconcentration of customer’s investments in alternative assets. Chackman evaded the firm’s supervision and inaccurately completed investor documents. LPL Financial Inc., Chackman’s employer at the time of the incident, denies any involvement in Chackman’s illegal activity.

Although Chackman neither admitted nor denied FINRA’s findings, he consented to the described sanction; therefore FINRA barred him as a member of the association. Although there are numerous complaints and investigations pending before FINRA, the association rarely bars brokers. Only one other broker was barred this year due to misrepresentations in the sale of an investment product.

Not only did Chackman allegedly misrepresent the financial transaction to the firm, but also failed to disclose the high-risk nature of alternative investment to his clients. The investor’s liquid net worth was misidentified on purchase forms when acquiring Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and alternative investments. By misrepresenting client information on the purchase forms, the client’s purported liquid net worth remained below the firm’s limitation. Therefore, the REITs became highly concentrated in illiquid alterative investments.

Former LPL Financial Broker Stephen Brown Accused of Selling Private Real Estate Investments

December 3, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently barred broker Stephen Michael Brown (Brown) for failing to comply with FINRA’s requests for information concerning allegations that Brown engaged in the unlawful sale of securities. Specifically, at least two customers had brought complaints against Brown alleging that Brown had solicited them to invest in private real estate investments in violation of industry rules.

Brown was formerly registered with FINRA firm LPL Financial Corporation (LPL Financial) from 1989 through May 2009. Thereafter, Brown became associated with Brewer Financial Services, LLC until November 2010. Finally, from November 2010, until May 2011, Brown was an associated person of Best Direct Securities, LLC (Best Direct) a currently inactive FINRA firm. Brown’s public disclosures list Brown as the owner of Steve Brown Ent., a company engaged in real estate business.

The accusations made against Brown are consistent with a “selling away” securities violation. Brokers are required to have their firms approve all securities transactions they participate in, even private financial transactions. Thus, when a broker fails to notify the firm of securities activities he or she “sells away” from the firm. Selling away is prohibited under FINRA Rule 3040, as well as other securities laws. The most common securities products solicited in selling away schemes are private placements and promissory note.

Gana LLP Investigates Silver Oak Leasing and Alberto Neira

September 4, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

Gana Weinstein LLP is investigating claims against LPL Financial (LPL) on behalf of former customers of Alberto Neira who invested in Silver Oak Leasing (Silver Oak). In November 2012, Neira executed a letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) concerning his sale of investments in Silver Oak. According to the AWC, “[b]eginning in 2006, [Neira] became engaged with an outside business activity at Silver Oak Leasing, Inc. (“Silver Oak”), a California corporation purportedly involved in providing automobile financing and leasing services. [Neira] failed to fully disclose his involvement in the outside business activity, including that he was acting as a director of Silver Oak. [Neira] thereby violated NASD Rules 3030 and 2110 and FINRA Rules 32701 and 2010. Between July 1, 2008, and January 18, 2011 (the relevant period), [Neira] also recommended investments in Silver Oak to 14 customers. He did so without disclosure to his firm, [LPL Financial,] in violation of NASD Rules 3040 and 2110 and FINRA Rule 2010.2. Finally, during the course of this investigation, [Neira] failed to timely respond to staff requests for information and testimony. As a result, [Neira] violated FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010.” Neira was barred from the securities industry.

From February 2002 through January 2011, Neira was registered with LPL and operated out of Santa Ana, California. Under FINRA Rule 3010, LPL was obligated to properly supervise the activities of Neira during the time he was registered with the brokerage firm. Accordingly, we believe LPL may be liable for failing to supervise Neira’s activities while registered at the firm, and that it could be held responsible for compensating customers of Neira for their losses.

Former customers of Neira who invested in Silver Oak are encouraged to contact Gana Weinstein LLP to explore their legal rights and options.

The Dangers of Low-Priced (Penny Stocks) Securities

September 3, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

A “penny stock” is defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a security issued by a very small company, micro-cap or less than $100 million in market capitalization, and trades at less than $5 per share. Penny stocks generally are quoted over-the-counter, such as on the OTC Bulletin Board or OTC Link LLC. However, not all penny stocks trade over-the-counter and many trade on securities exchanges, including foreign securities exchanges. In addition, the definition of penny stock can also include private companies with no active trading market.

Penny stocks are inherently risky due to several contributing factors. First, penny stocks may trade infrequently, meaning that it may become difficult to liquidate penny stock holdings once acquired. Second, it may be difficult to find accurate quotes for certain penny stocks. Therefore, it may be difficult or even impossible to accurately price certain penny stocks. Due to these risks, penny stock investors may lose their whole investment. When penny stock investing is combined with margin borrowing the results can be catastrophic for the investor.

If the inherent risks of penny stocks were not great enough, penny stocks are often used and manipulated for fraudulent purposes. One common scheme is the “pump and dump” scheme. The idea behind a pump and dump scheme is to create unfounded hype for a penny stock the pumper already owns. As the pumper’s victims buy into the hype additional purchases drive up the price of the stock artificially. The pumper then sells his shares for a large profit while those the pumper recommended the penny stock to quickly lose their money as the stock’s value decreases precipitously.

Behringer Harvard REIT Fund Investor Losses Continue to Mount

August 22, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

Investors continue to suffer substantial losses from recommended investments in the Behringer Harvard REIT Funds. The Behringer Harvard REIT Funds including the Behringer Harvard Mid-Term Value Enhancement I, Behringer Harvard Short-Term Opportunity Fund I, and the Behringer Harvard REIT I and II (Behringer REITs) have sometimes been sold to investors as safe, stable, income producing real estate investment trusts. While the Behringer REITs were initially sold to investors for $10 per share, currently some of these REITs trade as low as approximately $2.00 on the secondary market. Worse still, some of the funds no longer pay a dividend or investors receive only a fraction of what their advisor initially told their clients they could expect the investment to yield.

The Behringer REITs are speculative securities, non-traded, and offered only through a Regulation D private placement. Unlike traditional registered mutual funds or publicly traded REITs that have a published daily Net Asset Value (NAV) and trade on a national stock exchange, the Behringer REITs raised money through private placement offerings and are illiquid securities. In recent years, increased volatility in stocks has led to an increasing number of advisor recommendations to invest in non-traded REITs as a way to invest in a stable income producing investment. Some non-traded REITs have even claimed to offer stable returns while the real estate market has undergone extreme volatility. Brokers are often motivated to sell non-traded REITs to clients due to the large commissions that can be earned in the selling the Behringer REITs.

Investors are now bringing claims against the brokerage firms that sold them the Behringer REITs alleging that their advisor failed to disclose important risks of the REITs. Some common risks that customers have alleged were not disclosed include failing to explain that Behringer REITs may not be liquidated for up to 8 to 12 years or more, that the redemption policy can be eliminated at any time, and that investor returns may not come from funds generated through operations but can include a return of investor capital.

The SEC Accused Blake Richards of Stealing $2 Million from Clients

August 20, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

Blake Richards (Richards), a former Georgia representative of LPL Financial (LPL), was charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with defrauding investors and misappropriating $2 million dollars from at least seven clients. According to the complaint filed by the SEC in the Northern District Court of Georgia, Richards directed clients to write checks from retirement accounts or from life insurance policy proceeds in the name of investment businesses he owned, such as “Blake Richards Investments” and “BMO Investments.” However, according to the SEC, his clients’ money was not used for legitimate investing purposes as Richards siphoned off millions for his own personal use.

Richards was a registered representative of LPL from 2009 through May 2013 out of his company, Lanier Wealth Management LLC. According to the SEC’s complaint, Richards used a variety of devices to deceive investors and gain their trust. For instance, Richards is alleged to have created fictitious statements on LPL letterhead in order to continue and conceal his scheme. Richards also gave investors business cards with false professional designations, such as “AAMS”, standing for Accredited Asset Management Specialist, when Richards was not accredited. Finally, Richards even delivered pain medication during a snowstorm to one client’s husband who had been diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer in order to gain the client’s trust.

The SEC complaint seeks an order to disgorge Richard’s ill-gotten gains and to free his assets pending further investigation.