Private Placements

FINRA Sanctions Broker Douglas Campbell Jr. Over Unsuitable Investment Advice

February 26, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker Douglas Campbell Jr. (Campbell) concerning allegations that between May 2008 and September 2008, while registered with Wedbush Morgan Securities, Inc. (Wedbush), he engaged in unsuitable trading a customer’s account by recommending purchases of three speculative private placement investments that were not consistent with the customer’s investment objectives, resulting in an overconcentration in the customer’s account. FINRA found that Campbell’s recommendations were made without reasonable grounds for believing that they were suitable for the customer.

In addition, according to Campbell’s public records four customers have filed complaints concerning Campbell’s investment advice. These statistics are troubling because multiple customer complaints on a broker’s record are rare. According to InvestmentNews, only about 12% of financial advisors have any type of disclosure event on their records. These disclosures do not necessarily have to include customer complaints but can include IRS tax liens, judgments, and even criminal matters. The number of brokers with multiple customer complaints is far smaller. The complaints against Campbell alleged fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, excessive trading, and unsuitable investments.

Campbell first became registered with FINRA in 1994. On July 9, 2007, Campbell became registered Wedbush. On November 29, 2012, Wedbush filed a Form U5 reporting that Campbell voluntarily terminated his employment on November 26, 2012.

Gana LLP Investigation Spotlight: Source Capital Group and Donald Saccomano

February 10, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently brought a complaint against Source Capital Group, Inc. (Source Capital) broker Donald Saccomano (Saccomano) alleging misconduct in connection with suitability, false representation, and failure to supervise claims relating to Direct Participation Products, limited partnerships, and municipal debt securities. FINRA has not released detailed information concerning the pending complaint but this is only one of several recent actions FINRA has taken against Source Capital and its financial advisors in recent years.

As we recently reported, FINRA filed a complaint against former Source Capital broker Joseph Hooper (Hooper) alleging that Hooper was working for a company called the iPractice Group, Inc. (iPractice) in a capacity that included solicited and participating in the sale of iPractice stock to customers. In that complaint FINRA alleged that Hooper was compensated for his activities. FINRA alleged that Hooper participated in 53 private securities transactions involving 41 investors or investor groups and a total of $3,400,648 worth of iPractice stock. In return, FINRA alleged that Hooper received $425,081 and more than 21,000 shares of iPractice stock as compensation for his activities.

Previously, our firm wrote about supervisory and disclosure issues at Source Capital, including FINRA’s action against Source Capital and certain principals concerning the failure of the firm’s brokers to adequately disclose material facts and the transaction of sales through misstatements. The allegations in FINRA’s action concerned certain oil and gas partnership interests in Blue Ridge Securities (Blue Ridge) and Argyle Securities. (Argyle) offered by Source Capital.

WFG Investments Sanctioned Over Failure to Review Transactions for Suitability Part II

February 9, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

This article continues our prior post concerning The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recent sanctions of brokerage firm WFG Investments, Inc. (WFG) alleging a host of supervisory failures from March 2007, through January 2014.

In one supervisory failure example involving suitability, FINRA found that between 2009, and 2013, a broker by the initials “MC” (1) traded with discretion in several of his customers’ accounts without their written authorization; and (2) also excessively traded in at least one of his customer’s accounts in light the customer’s investment objectives and risk tolerance. FINRA also alleged that many of the securities traded were also qualitatively unsuitable in light of the customers’ age, objectives, risk tolerance, and financial situation. In addition, several of the customer’s accounts were charged both commissions and management fees and this problem was not identified or corrected even after it was detected.

FINRA also alleged that MC used unapproved charts and provided consolidated statements to a customer without the firm’s knowledge or approval. Moreover, allegedly there were exception reports that highlighted the problem trading activity in several of these accounts that were simply not reviewed or not properly processed. In fact, FINRA found that one of the customers who complained about unsuitable activity in her accounts was not contacted by the firm until after she had complained despite the fact that her accounts had appeared on numerous exception reports. Similarly, FINRA found that broker SGD was also permitted by the WFG to engage in unsuitable trading in one of his customer’s accounts which included the recommendation and sale of numerous high risk equity and ETF purchases for a retired client with a conservative risk tolerance.

FINRA Sanctions WFG Investments $700,000 for Supervisory Failures Part I

February 6, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned brokerage firm WFG Investments, Inc. (WFG) alleging a host of supervisory failures from March 2007, through January 2014. FINRA alleged that WFG failed to commit the necessary time, attention, and resources to critical regulatory obligations in supervising registered representatives including: (1) failure to conduct appropriate due diligence on a private placement offering that was sold by a broker away from the firm; (2) failure to supervise the private securities transactions of one of its brokers that were executed through the representative’s investment advisory firm; (3) failure to maintain a supervisory system to ensure customer transactions were suitable; (4) failure to enforce its written supervisory procedures regarding the sale of alternative investments; (5) failure to supervise statements made by one broker on his weekly radio broadcast; and (6) failure to timely report customer complaints and update the Forms U4 and U5 of its brokers.

WFG has been a FINRA member since 1988, conducts a general securities business, and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. WFG currently has about 280 brokers operating out of 102 branch offices.

FINRA alleged that in 2007, a WFG broker by the initials “SGD” provided notice to the firm that he intended to sell a private placement offering FINRA called “ATMA” to his customers. ATMA was designed to offer an income stream to investors based revenues form automated teller machines (ATMs). In evaluating a selling agreement with SGD, FINRA alleged that WFG assigned its compliance officer known by the initials “TS” to conduct due diligence on ATMA. TS owned a 5% interest in ATMA and SGD was the 90% owner and the operator of ATMA, had no prior experience in structuring and offering private placement investments. FINRA found that the entity that was to provide the ATM machines to ATMA was engaged in fraudulent business practices and most of the ATMs were fictional. FINRA found that WFG declined to enter into a selling agreement with SGD, but permitted him SGD to sell interests in ATMA as private securities transactions.

Overconcentrated in Oil and Gas Investments?

January 22, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

A strengthening dollar and increased global supply of oil has sent crude oil prices tumbling in the second half of 2014. Recently, crude futures for delivery in February 2015 fell to $52.69 a barrel, the lowest finish since April 2009. Some experts are saying that if production volume continues to be as high as it currently is and demand growth weak that the return to $100 a barrel is years away.

As a result, in recent months investors have contacted our firm about being concentrated in various oil and gas exposed investments including private placements, stocks, and ETFs. On the private placement side alone the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), has stated that since 2008, approximately 4,000 oil and gas private placements have sought to raise nearly $122 billion in investor capital. However, these oil and gas private placements suffer from enormous risks that often outweigh any potential benefits including securities fraud, conflicts of interests, high transaction / sales costs, and investment risk.

In addition, investor accounts may be overconcentrated in oil and gas stocks or ETFs. Some of these ETFs may be leveraged or non-traditional ETFs. These leveraged ETFs seek to increase the return on the oil and gas index by using leverage to amplify returns exposing the investor to greater volatility during an already volatile period in the oil market. Below are some of oil and gas related ETFs.

Complaint Filed Against Joseph Hooper Relating to iPractice Group Investment Sales

January 3, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently filed a complaint against former Source Capital Group, Inc. (Source Capital) broker Joseph Hooper (Hooper) alleging that Hooper was serving as the Director of Investor Relations for a company called the iPractice Group, Inc. (iPractice) and that in such capacity, Hooper participated in the sale of iPractice stock and was compensated for that participation without notifying Source Capital of these activities. FINRA alleged that Hooper participated in 53 private securities transactions involving 41 investors or investor groups and a total of $3,400,648 worth of iPractice stock. In return, FINRA alleged that Hooper received $425,081 and more than 21,000 shares of iPractice stock as compensation for his activities.

This is not the first time our firm has written about supervisory and disclosure issues at Source Capital. Our firm has previously written concerning FINRA’s action against Source Capital concerning the agency’s findings that certain Source Capital brokers failed to adequately disclose material facts and made sales through misstatements in oil and gas partnership interests in Blue Ridge Securities (Blue Ridge) and Argyle Securities. (Argyle).

In FINRA’s recent action, when Hooper became associated with Source Capital in May 2012, he was also the Director of Investor Relations for iPractice, a medical technology company. FINRA alleged that Hooper remained the Director of Investor Relations for iPractice throughout the time he was associated with Source. iPractice raised funds for its operations by selling stock in the company through exempt private placement securities offerings. FINRA alleged that Hooper participated in the solicitation and sale of iPractice stock to investors. In addition, Hooper was listed by iPractice as a promoter on an amended Form D filed with the SEC on May 18, 2012.

Arque Capital Sanctioned By FINRA Over GWG Renewable Secured Debentures Sales

January 1, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in an acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC) sanctioned Arque Capital, Ltd. (Arque) concerning allegations that since 2011 Arque has acted as the managing broker-dealer for an alternative investment – GWG Renewable Secured Debentures (the Debentures) offered by GWG Holdings, Inc, In that capacity FINRA alleged that Arque was responsible for conducting due diligence into GWG and the Debentures, and reviewing all advertising pieces related to the Debentures. FINRA found that between March 2012, and November 2012, Arque distributed a GWG Debenture sales brochure that contained misleading statements.

Arque has been a registered broker-dealer since 2002, has its home office in Scottsdale, Arizona, and 23 branch offices located in various states. The firm has approximately 60 registered representatives. In recent months FINRA has brought numerous disciplinary actions against various firms, supervisors, and brokers concerning the improper sale of GWG Debentures including:

Center Street Securities Broker David Escarcega Investigated Over GWG Debenture Sales;

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.

Aegis Capital Corp. Broker Malcom Segal Barred From Industry Over Allegations of Outside Business Activities

December 14, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently barred former Aegis Capital Corp. (Aegis) broker Malcom Segal (Segal) alleging that Segal may have engaged in unauthorized transfers of funds from customer accounts to an outside business activities (a/k/a “selling away”).

According to Segal’s BrokerCheck, Segal was registered with Cumberland Brokerage Corporation from 1989 until April 2011. Thereafter, Segal was a broker for Aegis until July 2014 where he was terminated on allegations of by the firm violations of the firm that Segal failed to cooperate with an internal investigation into a customer complaint he made unauthorized wire transfers from a customer’s account. Segal’s disclosures also reveal that he is listed as a partner of J & M Financial and President of National C.D. Sales.

Upon information and belief, it is in connection with National C.D. Sales that customer have filed complaints against Segal concerning. While details concerning Segal’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. In many cases the broker transfers funds or liquidates investments at his registered firm in order to make the investment in the outside business.

Do Increased Investor Risks Lurk Behind the SEC’s Revisiting of the Accredited Investor Definition Part II

November 21, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

This article continues to opine on an InvestmentNews article, describing the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) revisiting the accredited investor standard that determines who is eligible to invest in private placements. It is the opinion of this securities attorney who has represented hundreds of cases involving investors in private placement offerings that some of the IAC’s proposals are severely flawed and will only enrich the industry at investor’s expense. While proposals to increase standards through sophistication tests and limiting the amount of private placement investments to a certain percentage of net worth are constructive, it is clear that some will attempt to use the review to water down the current requirements. Below are some of the reasons why proposals to abandon the income and net worth approach and instead use a definition that takes into account an individual’s education, professional credentials, and investment experience will be a disaster for investors.

First, many private placements such as equipment leasing and non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs) already skirt these rules and offer non-traded investments to those with income of $70,000 and net worth of $250,000. If you want to see what the world would be like without the $1,000,000 constraint on private placements, it’s already here and it’s not pretty.

Non-Traded REITs are a $20 billion a year industry that basically ballooned overnight. These non-traded investments act like private placements and charge anywhere from 7-15% of investor capital in the form of commissions and selling fees. In addition, there is little evidence to support that these investments will largely be profitable for investors. In fact, because non-traded REITs offer products with very limited income and net worth thresholds brokers have loaded up clients accounts to such an extent that the NASAA has proposed universal concentration limits to curb these abusive practices. But as bad as many of these products are, many other private placements that would be allowed to be sold to investors under some of the IAC proposals are far worse.