LPL Financial

Atlas Energy Oil and Gas Investments: Risks Investors Should Know Part II

December 17, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

This article follows up on a recent article reported in Reuters concerning Atlas Energy LP’s private placement partnerships in oil and gas. Atlas Resources LLC, a subsidiary the energy group, has filed documents with the SEC for Atlas Resources Series 34-2014 LP stating that it seeks to raise as much as $300 million by Dec. 31 of 2014. The deal allows investors to participate in investments where advances in drilling technology have turned previously inaccessible reservoirs of oil into viable prospects. In addition, Atlas promises to invest up to $145 million of its own capital alongside investors.

In the last article we explored how the house seems more likely to win on these deals over investors. But beyond the inherent risks with speculating on oil and gas and unknown oil deposits most investors don’t realize the deals are often unfair to investors. In a normal speculative investment as the investment risk goes up the investor demands greater rewards to compensate for the additional risk. However, with oil and gas private placements the risks are sky high and the rewards simply don’t match up.

In order to counter this criticism, issuers say that the tax benefits of their deals where the investor can write off more than 90 percent of their initial outlay the year they make it helps defray the risk and increase the value proposition. First, the same tax advantage claims are often nominal compared to the principal risk of loss of the investment as seen by Puerto Rican investors in the UBS Bond Funds who have now seen their investments decline by 50% or more in some cases. Second, often times brokers sell oil and gas investments indiscriminately to the young and old who have lower incomes and cannot take advantage of the tax benefits.

Atlas Energy Oil and Gas Investments: A Risky Proposition Part I

December 16, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

As recently reported in Reuters, Atlas Energy LP has marketed itself to investors as a way to get into the U.S. energy boom. By contributing at least $25,000 in a private placement partnership that will drill for oil and gas in states such as Texas, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania and share in revenues generated from the wells. Atlas Resources LLC, a subsidiary the energy group, has filed documents with the SEC for Atlas Resources Series 34-2014 LP stating that it seeks to raise as much as $300 million by Dec. 31 of 2014. The deal sounds good when pitched: participate in investments where advances in drilling technology have turned previously inaccessible reservoirs of fossil fuels into potentially viable prospects and to boot Atlas will invest up to $145 million of its own capital alongside investors. Through this method and similar deals, oil and gas projects have issued nearly 4,000 private placements since 2008 seeking to raise as much as $122 billion.

But before you take the plunge a review of the Atlas’s offering memorandum reveals some red flags and given Atlas’ past failure rate investors should think twice. First, up to $45 million of the money raised will be paid to Atlas affiliate Anthem Securities that will then be turned over to as commissions to broker-dealers who pitch the deal to investors. Up to $39 million more will be used to buy drilling leases from another affiliate. Think investors will get a fair price on the leases when Atlas controls both sides of the deal? More conflicts ahead as Atlas affiliated suppliers may also get up to $53 million for buying drilling and transport equipment. Next, an additional $8 million of Atlas’s investment is a 15 percent markup on estimated equipment costs. Finally, Atlas will pay itself nearly $52 million in various other fees and markups.

In sum, at least 40% of Atlas’s $145 million investment alongside mom and pop goes right back to the company. In addition, Atlas’ profits don’t stop there, when the venture starts generating revenue Atlas is entitled to 33% before accounting for those payments and markups. In the end, not much of a risk at all for Atlas.

LPL Financial Broker Jon Cox Under Investigation For Outside Business Activities

December 15, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently filed a complaint against LPL Financial LLC (LPL) broker Jon Cox (Cox) alleging that Cox may have engaged in unauthorized outside business activities, private securities transactions (a/k/a “selling away”), and/or unauthorized customer loans. According to Cox’s BrokerCheck, Cox was terminated in January 2014 by LPL on allegations of violations of the firm policy regarding outside business activities. Cox’s disclosures also reveal that he works for a DBA Investment and Retirement Services Group in Knoxville, TN. In addition he is a sales agent for Proton Power, Inc.

While details concerning Cox’s activities are still pending, the allegations against Cox 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.

In selling away cases, investors are unaware that the advisor’s investment advice is not authorized and potentially illegal because the securities sold are often not registered with the SEC. Typically investors will not learn that the broker’s activities were wrongful until after the investment scheme is publicized or the broker simply shuts down shop and stops returning client calls.

Gana LLP Investigates JP Morgan in Connection with Allegations against Benjamin Maleche

November 25, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Gana Weinstein LLP is investigating JPMorgan Securities (“JP Morgan”) in connection with the supervision of Benjamin Doyle Maleche and allegations of “selling away.”

“Selling away” occurs when a securities broker or broker-dealer buys, solicits, or sells securities that were not approved by the broker’s affiliated firm or recorded on the firm’s books and records. Selling away is prohibited under the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), particularly FINRA Rule 3040, as well as other securities laws.

On August 27, 2014, Maleche entered into a letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (“AWC”) with FINRA, wherein he consented to a nine (9) month suspension from all securities related activity and agreed to pay a $5,000 fine to FINRA. According to the AWC, Benjamin Maleche entered the securities industry in July 2008 with a FlNRA member firm as a registered representative and investment adviser representative (“IAR”). In April 2010, Maleche became licensed as a general securities representative (“GSR”) with Chase Investment Services Corp. (BD No. 25574), which later merged with JP Morgan Securities, Inc.

Massachusetts Fines LPL Financial Over Variable Annuity Sales Practices to Seniors

November 23, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

According to InvestmentNews, LPL Financial, LLC (LPL Financial) was recently fined by Massachusetts securities regulators fined for sales practices concerning variable annuities and agreed to reimburse senior citizens $541,000 for surrender charges they paid when they switched variable annuities. LPL Financial and its brokers have been on the defensive from securities regulators many times in recent years concerning a variety of alleged sales practice and supervisory short comings as shown below.

LPL Financial Fires Texas Broker James “Jeb” Bashaw

November 16, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Gana Weinstein LLP is investigating LPL Financial after its stunning termination of James “Jeb” Bashaw, a former broker with LPL Financial. According to FINRA’s BrokerCheck Report, LPL Financial terminated Mr. Bashaw for “participating in private securities transactions without providing written disclosure to and obtaining written approval from the firm.”

In addition, LPL explained that it terminated Mr. Bashaw for borrowing money from a client and engaging in a business transaction that created a “potential conflict of interest without providing written disclosure to and obtaining written approval from the firm.” Finally, LPL Financial stated that Mr. Bashaw failed to follow firm policies and industry regulations. Mr. Bashaw was discharged on September 24, 2014. In response, Mr. Bashaw stated that he was home supervised and had 13 perfect audits. Furthermore, he stated that he was still unclear as to the specifics of the discharge.

Mr. Bashaw started his career with Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. and worked there for about two years and four months. Over his thirty year career, he also worked at Kidder, Peabody & Co., Thomas F. White & Co., First America Equities Corp., Augusta Securities Corp., Suntrust Equitable Securities, J.C. Bradford & Co., UBS Painewebber, Inc. and was most recently working at Wunderlich Securities, Inc.

Non-Traded REITs Sales Grow As Shown in Second Quarter 2014 Rankings

October 21, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Since the financial crisis the non-traded real estate investment trust (REIT) market has been a financial boon for the brokerage industry. A REIT is a security that invests typically in real estate related assets. Generally, REITs can be publicly or privately held. While publicly held REITs can be sold on an exchange, are liquid, and have lower commissions and fees, non-traded REITs are sold are private, are speculative, illiquid, and often charge fees of over 10%. Nonetheless, non-traded REITs have become a darling product of the financial industry, mostly because of the fat fees brokers earn for recommending these speculative products.

Brokers selling these products sometimes claim that non-traded REITs offer stable returns compared to the volatile stock market. As the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) have recently noted, these products may not be as safe and stabile as advertised.

InvestmentNews recently ranked non listed REITs by second quarter 2014 invested assets. As shown below, investment in these funds are substantial and continues to grow each quarter

Company	2Q invested assets ($M)	Original share price	Current share value	Original distribution rate	Current distribution rate	2Q14 FFO 2 payout ratio
Inland American Real Estate Trust	$10,128.5	$10	$6.94	6.20%	5.00%	75%
Corporate Property Associates 17 Global	$4,564.7	$10	$9.50	6.50%	6.50%	81%
Apple Hospitality	$3,960.0	$11	$10.10	8.00%	7.25%	83%
Industrial Income Trust	$3,747.6	$10	$10.40	6.00%	6.00%	100%
Tier REIT	$3,455.8	$10	$4.20	7.00%	0.00%	N/A
CNL Lifestyle Properties	$3,343.4	$10	$6.85	6.25%	4.25%	108%
Griffin-American Healthcare REIT II	$3,056.2	$10	$10.22	6.50%	6.65%	143%
Monogram Residential Trust	$2,879.1	$10	$10.03	7.00%	3.50%	189%
Cole Credit Property Trust IV	$2,833.0	$10	$10.00	6.25%	6.25%	145%
KBS Real Estate Investment Trust II	$2,714.1	$10	$10.29	6.50%	6.50%	98%
Cole Corporate Income Trust	$2,606.3	$10	$10.00	6.50%	6.50%	94%
Hines Real Estate Investment Trust	$2,422.1	$10	$6.40	6.00%	2.90%	88%
American Realty Capital Trust V	$2,233.5	$25	$25.00	6.60%	6.60%	86%
KBS Real Estate Investment Trust	$2,058.0	$10	$4.45	7.00%	0.00%	N/A
Landmark Apartment Trust	$1,889.4	$10	$8.15	6.00%	3.00%	38%
Phillips Edison – ARC Shopping Center	$1,846.9	$10	$10.00	6.50%	6.70%	129%
Steadfast Income REIT	$1,592.7	$10	$10.24	7.00%	7.00%	165%
Strategic Storage Trust	$731.5	$10	$10.79	7.00%	6.50%	120%
Signature Office	$676.4	$25	$25.00	6.00%	6.00%	83%
Lightstone Value Plus REIT	$643.2	$10	$11.80	7.00%	7.00%	69%

Many brokerage firms have come under fire for their non-traded REIT sales practices. For instance LPL Financial in particular has been accused by several regulators of failing to reign in their broker’s sales practices concerning alternative investments. On March 24, 2014, LPL Financial was fined $950,000 by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for failing to supervise its brokers’ marketing of nontraditional investments. LPL Financial was alleged to have deficient supervision in the sale of certain alternative investment products, including REITs, oil and gas partnerships, business development companies (BDC’s), hedge funds, and managed futures.

LPL Financial also paid a $500,000 fine to the Massachusetts Securities Division and was ordered to pay $4.8 million in restitution for supervisory and suitability related violations concerning non-traded REITs. In total six firms paid $11 million in restitution and fines related to REIT sales. The other firms including Ameriprise Financial Inc., Lincoln National, Commonwealth Financial Network, Royal Alliance Associates, and Securities America.

The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP are experienced in representing investors to recover their financial losses through the misrepresentation of non-traded REITs. Our consultations are free of charge and the firm is only compensated if you recover.

An Examination of LPL Financial’s Recent Regulatory Woes

October 7, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

LPL Financial, LLC (LPL) is one of the largest independent brokerage firms in the United States employing approximately 13,840 registered reps and advisers. However, the firm’s growth has come with a host of regulatory actions focusing on the firm’s alleged supervisory failures.

Recently, InvestmentNews reported that the firm was hit with a $2 million fine, and ordered to pay $820,000 in restitution, for failing to maintain adequate books and records documenting variable annuity exchanges. The mounting firm fines have led to flat second quarter earnings at LPL. The firm has stated that the company is instituting enhanced procedures with a view to ensuring that surrender charges incurred in connection with variable annuity exchange transactions are accurately reflected in the firm’s books and records as well as in any disclosures given to clients. The firm is also purportedly taking steps to make sure that its advisers are adequately documenting the basis for their variable annuity recommendations.

LPL has been on the radar of FINRA and several state regulators that have focused on the firm’s supervisory and other record systems as well as examining sales of investment products, including non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs). In February 2013, LPL settled with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to pay at least $2 million in restitution and $500,000 in fines concerning the firm’s non-traded REIT practices. In addition, in the last year, FINRA has fined LPL Financial $7.5 million for significant e-mail system failures. Moreover, we have reported on numerous LPL registered representatives who have been fined over the past year for a variety of misconduct ranging from misappropriation of funds, sales of alternative investments, selling away activities, and private placements.

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.

LPL Financial Fined For Failure to Properly Supervise Variable Annuities Transactions

September 26, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

LPL Financial was recently fined $2 million and ordered to pay $820,000 in restitution, for violations pertaining to variable annuity exchanges. This settlement, which was reached with the Illinois Securities Department, resulted from LPL’s inadequate maintenance of books and records with regards to documenting 1035 exchanges. A 1035 Exchange is a tax-free exchange of an existing annuity contract for a new one. In order for the new contract to qualify as a Section 1035 Exchange, the policyholder must have exchanged his or her existing contract for an equivalent new contract. The annuitant or policyholder must also remain the same.

According to LPL’s BrokerCheck file, LPL “failed to enforce its supervisory system and procedures in connection with the documentation of certain salespersons’ variable annuity exchange activities.” LPL has indicated that it will seek to enhance its procedures relating to surrender charges that often result from variable annuity exchange transactions. This, LPL believes, would ensure accuracy in their books and records along with client disclosures.

The product at issue was variable annuities, which have been closely watched by regulators dues to the complexity of the product and high fee structures. Elderly investors have often been sold variable annuities, when they were entirely unsuitable, just so that brokers could earn increased commissions. Regulators have paid especially close attention to those advisors who have switched their clients from one variable annuity to another, just to enhance their commissions.