PHD Capital

Customers File Complaints Against Barry Jin Over Unauthorized Trades

May 25, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints against broker Barry Jin (Jin). There are at least three customer complaints against Jin. The customer complaints against Jin allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unauthorized trading among other claims.

Advisors are not allowed to engage in unauthorized trading. Such trading occurs when a broker sells securities without the prior authority from the investor. All brokers are under an obligation to first discuss trades with the investor before executing them under NYSE Rule 408(a) and FINRA Rules 2510(b). These rules explicitly prohibit brokers from making discretionary trades in a customers’ non-discretionary accounts. The SEC has also found that unauthorized trading to be fraudulent nature because no disclosure could be more important to an investor than to be made aware that a trade will take place.

One of the firm’s Jin was registered with, Aegis Capital Corp. (Aegis), has been identified as brokerage firm that employs troublesome brokers. According to a recent study conducted by the Securities Litigation and Consulting Group entitled “How Widespread and Predictable is Stock Broker Misconduct?” the incidents of investor harm at Aegis is extraordinarily high. The study ranked Aegis as the worst brokerage firm finding that brokers at the firm had over a 35% misconduct rate. The study stated that investors should stay away from Aegis “Given their coworkers’ disclosure record as of 2014, 83.7% of the brokers at these six firms would be in the highest risk quintile as defined in the FINRA study and should be avoided by investors. The BrokerCheck reports for most of the brokers at these six firms should prominently display a skull and crossbones warning.”

FINRA Bars Broker Ricardo Fancois During Investigation Into Sales Practices

February 3, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating the termination by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) of broker Ricardo Fancois (Fancois). According to BrokerCheck records Fancois is subject to one regulatory action, one investigation, and two judgement or lien.

FINRA terminated Fancois after the broker failed to respond to a letter request for information in July 2015. Prior to that time, in March 2015, FINRA opened an investigation into Fancois alleging potential willful violations of the securities fraud laws and FINRA rules. Because FINRA terminated Fancois due to the broker’s failure to respond to the regulator’s requests for information, there is no additional information listed with specifics of Fancois’ alleged wrongdoing. Prior to that time Fancois was subject to over $3,000 in liens.

Brokers have a responsibility treat investors fairly which includes obligations such as making only suitable investments for the client. In order to make a suitable recommendation the broker must meet certain requirements. First, there must be reasonable basis for the recommendation the product or security based upon the broker’s investigation and due diligence into the investment’s properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, and other relevant factors. Second, the broker then must match the investment as being appropriate for the customer’s specific investment needs and objectives such as the client’s retirement status, long or short term goals, age, disability, income needs, or any other relevant factor.

FINRA Bars Broker James Starks During Investigation Into Sales Practices

February 1, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) against broker James Starks (Starks). According to BrokerCheck records Starks is subject to one regulatory action, two investigations, and one criminal matter.

FINRA terminated Starks after the broker failed to respond to a letter request for information in July 2015. Prior to that time, in January 2015, FINRA opened an investigation into Starks alleging potential willful violations of the FINRA rules. Prior to that time, in March 2014, FINRA opened another investigation into Starks alleging potential willful violations of securities fraud laws and FINRA rules.

Brokers have a responsibility treat investors fairly which includes obligations such as making only suitable investments for the client. In order to make a suitable recommendation the broker must meet certain requirements. First, there must be reasonable basis for the recommendation the product or security based upon the broker’s investigation and due diligence into the investment’s properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, and other relevant factors. Second, the broker then must match the investment as being appropriate for the customer’s specific investment needs and objectives such as the client’s retirement status, long or short term goals, age, disability, income needs, or any other relevant factor.

FINRA Bars Richard Adams Over Churning Customer Accounts

September 28, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) brought and enforcement action against broker Rasheed a/k/a Richard Adams (Adams) (FINRA No. 2015045911001) resulting in a bar from the securities industry alleging that between July 2013, and June 2014, Adams engaged in unsuitable excessive trading and churning in two of his customers’ accounts. In addition, FINRA alleged that Adams willfully failed to amend his Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration and Transfer (Form U4) to disclose 12 unsatisfied judgments and liens.

Adams first became associated with a FINRA member in 1997. From May 2002, until August 2010, Adams was associated with E1 Asset Management, Inc. Thereafter, from August 2010, until June 2011, Adams was associated with PHD Capital, Finally, from June 2011, until May 2015, Adams was associated with Caldwell International Securities out of their New York, New York office location. In 2010, Adams created and was the 100% owner of Adams Wealth Management, Inc. (AWM).

According to FINRA, from July 2013, to June 2014, Adams exercised de facto control over two customers’ accounts referred to by the initials “AD” and “PV”. FINRA found that Adams excessively and unsuitably traded and churned AD’s account and PV’s account in a manner that was inconsistent with those customers’ investment objectives, financial situations, and needs. Specifically, FINRA found Adams’ trading activity was inappropriate because it resulted in a turnover rate in AD’s account of 16.14, and a cost-to-equity ratio of 70.99% while in PV’s account the turnover ratio was 19.16 and the cost-to-equity ratio was 91.96%. FINRA found that the improper trading activity in these two accounts resulted in losses of approximately $37,000 and generated commissions of approximately $57,000.