REITs

FINRA Files Complaint Against Broker Anthony Diaz

September 16, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) brought a complaint against broker Anthony Diaz (Diaz) concerning a host of industry violations. Diaz entered the securities industry in January 2000 and has been registered with eleven different firms over fourteen years. Diaz is currently employed by IBN Financial Services, Inc., (IBN Financial) since September 2012.

Diaz has a long and troubled history of securities related violations and misconduct. There have been at least 14 customer complaints filed against Diaz, he has been subject to 5 firm terminations, and has two judgments. FINRA also found that Diaz was fired or permitted to resign by six of the eleven member firms with which he was registered for. On or about November 21, 2002, Edward Jones fired Diaz for providing inaccurate information during a supervisory review, was terminated by Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. because it was “no longer comfortable supervising”, was permitted to resign on April 1, 2009, by First Allied Securities, Inc. because he had a history of customer complaints and administrative infractions., was fired by SII Investments, Inc. for unauthorized trading, was fired by Kovack Securities, Inc. because of complaints alleging unauthorized trades, and finally was fired by Sandlapper Securities, LLC for soliciting sales of variable annuities without being properly appointed by the issuing company.

FINRA alleged that from March 2010, through May 2011, Diaz induced approximately eighty customers to enter into variable annuity exchanges causing significant surrender charges without a reasonable basis for recommending these exchanges. FINRA found that each customer invested in the same fund, had the same subaccount allocation, and had the same rider selected. FINRA alleged that Diaz recommended the annuity exchanges without having an understanding of the features of the new product and used the same three invalid justifications for nearly all of these exchanges.

Business Development Companies (BDC) – Investment Risks to Be Aware of – Part II

August 20, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

In our prior post we recently highlighted, the rising popularity of non-traded business development companies (BDCs). BDCs may be one of the latest and greatest products that Wall Street is promoting that will provide outsized yield with less risk. As usual, these “new ideas” end with brokerage firms making lots of money and investors suffering the consequences.

BDCs make loans to and invest in small to mid-size, developing, or financially troubled companies. BDCs now fill the role that many commercial banks left during the financial crisis to lend to those companies with questionable credit. While BDCs are not new products, until very recently investors had only publicly traded closed-end funds that acted like private equity firms to invest in. These funds are risky enough. During the last downturn some of the publicly traded funds fell by 60%, 70% or more.

Like their non-traded REIT cousins, non-traded BDCs utilize a non-traded REIT-like structure and promote very high yields of 10% or more. There are some differences between BDCs and REITs, BDCs are regulated under the 1940 Act that governs mutual funds. There is also a big difference in valuation. BDCs are valued quarterly while non-traded REITs publish their valuations no later than 18 months after the offering period.

Business Development Companies (BDC) – The Next Risky Wall Street Cash Cow?

August 19, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Since the financial crisis, the product development squad on Wall Street has been hard at work putting new spins on old ideas. The usual plan is merely to rebrand an old idea with a new label and convince investors looking for the latest and greatest product that the investment will provide outsized yield with less risk. It’s no coincidence that these new ideas make lots of money for the brokers selling them.

Enter the non-traded business development companies (BDCs). Now that many regulators and investors have begun to wise up and sour on the high commission and uncertain return approach offered by non-traded REITs, BDCs have entered into the fray as the non-stock market, non-real estate, high yield alternative. However, BDCs appear to be just as speculative – likely even more so – and inappropriate for most investors as non-traded REITs with many of the same failings such as obscenely high up-front fees, limited liquidity, and reliance on leverage to juice returns.

BDCs make loans to and invest in small to mid-size, developing, or financially troubled companies. BDCs have stepped into a role that many commercial banks left during the financial crisis due to capital raising requirements. In sum, BDCs lend to companies that may not otherwise get financing from traditional sources. While BDCs are not new, until very recently the market has been served by publicly traded closed-end funds that act like private equity firms. Just like the market was served just fine by publicly traded REITs before the non-traded variety showed up on the scene. One would think that the publicly traded BDCs provided high enough returns and were risky enough for even the most speculative investor considering that during the last downturn some of the funds fell by 60%, 70% or more. But greed is good.

Gana LLP Files Complaint on Behalf of a Family Against First Allied Securities and Centaurus Financial

August 14, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP recently filed a securities arbitration case on behalf of a family of four investors against First Allied Securities, Inc. (First Allied) and Centaurus Financial, Inc. (Centaurus) concerning allegations that their financial advisor Seyed Ahmad Hashemian (Hashemian) made unsuitable and inappropriate investment recommendations to claimants’ by recommending a near 100% concentration in illiquid, speculative, and high commission investments including variable annuities, equity-indexed annuities (EIAs), private placements, oil and gas ventures, non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), and Advanced Equities private placements.

Our law offices have represented over a dozen investors who alleged that they were sold the Advanced Equities private placements through the use of false and misleading advertising materials. In addition, to customer complaints both FINRA and the SEC have sanctioned Advanced Equities concerning the misleading nature of their sales practices. Customers have alleged that the products were misrepresented as “late stage equities” that were a mere 12-36 months from going public. The complaint also alleged that the investments were sold as providing “Higher near-term investment returns than the public equity markets” while providing “Greater short-term liquidity and lower risk profiles.” The complaint alleged that these representations were false and that First Allied failed to conduct even basic due diligence to verify the accuracy of these statements.

In the case of the recent complaint filed, claimants’ investments were alleged to have been made using money that was supposed to be used to replace the earnings the untimely passing of a family member. As a result, the complaint alleged that over a nearly nine year period where the broader market indexes have hit all-time highs, claimants have lost significant sums their investments. The claimants alleged that they have been deprived of the ability to generate reasonable returns by being trapped in illiquid and unsuitable investments.

James Bracey Barred Over Allegations of Taking Loans from Customers

July 29, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) barred from the financial industry broker James Bracey (Bracey) concerning allegations that in or about February 2008, Bracey, received a $175,000 loan from a customer without notifying Multi-Financial, now known as Cetera Advisor Network LLC. FINRA alleged that on multiple occasions between 2009 and 2011, Bracey renegotiated the interest payments on the customer’s loan. FINRA also found that in December 2009, while associated with Multi-Financial, Bracey falsified a customer’s written wire transfer instructions in order to execute an unauthorized fund transfer from a customer’s brokerage account to that customer’s personal bank account outside of Multi-Financial. FINRA determined that Bracey caused the creation and maintenance of inaccurate books and records through the falsifying the customer’s wire transfer.

FINRA also alleged that between October 31, 2001 and April 30, 2012, Bracey failed to timely notify Multi-Financial, and later LPL Financial LLC, of two separate outside business activities. FINRA also found that in October 2004, after soliciting 17 investors to purchase securities away from Multi-Financial, Bracey failed to provide written notice to or firm approval to engage in private securities transactions in violation of NASD Rules 3040 and 2110. FINRA’s allegations are consistent with a “selling away” violation in which a broker solicits investors to invest in unapproved investments. Finally, FINRA found that between 2004 and 2012, Bracey willfully failed to timely disclose material information to Multi-Financial and LPL Financial in order to update his Form U4 concerning two liens and two creditor compromises.

In addition to the slew of violations alleged by FINRA, Bracey has been the subject of at least three customer complaints and terminated by three brokerage firms. The customer complaints against Bracey concern private placements (direct participation programs), equipment leasing investments, unsuitable investments, non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), and misrepresentations in the sale of securities.

Ameriprise Advisor Michael Hainsworth Sanctioned Over Misleading REIT Sales

May 29, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned Ameriprise Financial Services (Ameriprise) broker Michael Hainsworth (Hainsworth) concerning allegations that the broker made certain misrepresentations and unbalanced statements in the sale of non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) by sending emails to potential investors that failed to provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts.

Hainsworth has been a broker in the securities industry since 1994. From 2007 through June 2009 Hainsworth was associated with Prime Capital Services, Inc. Thereafter, he was associated with brokerage firm Securities America, Inc. from July 2009 through September 2011. Finally, he was associated with Ameriprise from May 2009, through April 2012. Thereafter, Ameriprise filed a Form U5 Uniform Termination Notice stating that Hainsworth had been terminated from Ameriprise.

FINRA alleged that between May and October 2010, Hainsworth sent emails regarding a REIT to four potential investors. FINRA found that the emails were misleading and failed to provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts of the investment. In one email, Hainsworth stated that “My recommendation is to take $50,000 out of the market in your Trust account and $50,000 out of your IRA and allocate it to the…REIT…This pays 6.25 and matures Dec 3lst, 2015.”

Colorado Financial Service Fined By FINRA Over Private Placement Supervisory Failures

April 28, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently fined Colorado Financial Service Corporation (Colorado Financial) concerning allegations that the firm violated NASD Rule 3010, and FINRA Rule 2010, among other violations, by failing to establish, maintain, and enforce supervisory procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the securities rules pertaining to the supervision of electronic communications and due diligence review of new private placement offerings.

Colorado Financial is based in Centennial and became a FINRA member in 2000. Currently, there are approximately 82 persons registered with Colorado Financial in thirty six branches. The firm’s primary lines of business include investment banking, private placements, mutual funds, and variable life insurance or annuities.

FINRA alleged that Colorado Financial did not establish, maintain, and enforce adequate procedures to supervise and review electronic communications for the period of February 2009 to September 2012. According to FINRA, Colorado Financial only manually reviewed between .1% and 1.5% out of approximately 325,900 archived e-mails during the period of January 2012 to September 2012. FINRA found that Colorado Financial’s written supervisory procedures relating to electronic communications did not indicate who at the firm was responsible for the supervisory review, how the review would be conducted and documented, or establish protocols for escalating regulatory issues in e-mails.

LPL Financial Fined by FINRA for Failing to Supervise Sales of Alternative Investments

April 25, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On March 24, 2014, LPL Financial LLC, the fourth largest broker dealer, measured by number of salespersons, was fined $950,000 by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for failing to supervise the way that its brokers marketed and sold nontraditional investments. The fine is one of many that have recently been imposed on LPL and other “independent broker-dealers,” firms that provide products, marketing, and regulatory services to independent brokers who are not their full-time employees.

LPL Financial was alleged to have deficient supervision as it related to the sales of alternative investment products, including non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), oil and gas partnerships, business development companies (BDC’s), hedge funds, managed futures, and other illiquid pass through investments. FINRA found that from January 1, 2008, to July 1, 2012, LPL failed to adequately supervise the sales of theses alternative investments that violated concentration limits.

Investors often rely on professional advisors like LPL Financial, which help them to diversify their portfolio while minimizing risk. LPL, like many states, has limits in place, on the portion of a client’s portfolio that can be concentrated in these riskier, alternative investments. According to FINRA, however, LPL failed to ensure adherence to these limits. FINRA explained that between 2008 and 2012, LPL utilized a manual process that relied on outdated data to conduct suitability reviews. FINRA further stated that once LPL transitioned to a new automated review system, its database was built with faulty programming.

Bill Tatro and Mary Helen Caprice Mallett Accused of Selling Unsuitable Private Placements Securities Part II

April 1, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

This post continues our investigation into the recent bar of broker William (Bill) Tatro by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and his relationship with Mary Helen Caprice Mallett (Mallett), Tatro’s wife, colleague, and business partner.

Mallett has also had a large number of customer complaints initiated against her. Mallett’s BrokerCheck reveals that she was associated with First Allied at roughly the same time as Tatro. Thereafter, from September 2010 until May 2011, Mallett was associated with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (Morgan Stanley). From 2011 until June 2013, Mallett was associated with Independent Financial Group, LLC. Mallett is also associated or is involved in Biltmore Wealth Advisors, LLC, Capital Financial Management, Ltd, South Race Street, LLC, Red Rock, LLC, Mango Lizard LLC, and EZ Plan LLC.

In April 2011, Morgan Stanley filed a Form U5 taking the position that Mallett “engaged in outside business activities without prior written approval of [Morgan Stanley] and facilitated clients’ relationships with an outside investment manager”, believed to be Tatro, “who was not approved by or affiliated with [Morgan Stanley].” According to a lawsuit Morgan Stanley filed against Mallett she told Morgan Stanley that she and Tatro had used the same investment strategy over the previous nine years, presumably while associated with First Allied, and that she had bought Tatro’s book of business. However, Morgan Stanley charged that Mallett had falsely told them Tatro was no longer servicing his former clients.

Bill Tatro and Mary Helen Caprice Mallett Accused of Selling Unsuitable Private Placements Securities Part I

March 25, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently barred broker William (Bill) Tatro, formerly registered with First Allied Securities, Inc. (First Allied), concerning allegations that he failed to respond to two requests for information by FINRA staff in connection with an investigation into whether he violated federal securities laws or FINRA conduct rules. According to FINRA, Tatro admitted that he received both information requests but did not provide any of the requested information and documents because he claimed that he believed the bankruptcy court had stayed all requests pending the bankruptcy’s resolution. FINRA rejected Tatro’s bankruptcy defense and that Tatro violated FINRA Rules by failing to provide the information and documents FINRA staff requested and determined that Tatro should be permanently barred from associating with any FINRA member firm in any capacity.

FINRA initiated the investigation against Tatro after it received customer complaints and a series of Uniform Termination Notices (Forms U5) filed by Tatro’s former broker-dealer, First Allied. According to FINRA, the amended termination notices disclosed numerous customer complaints alleging fraud and other sales practice violations of more than 80 individuals who might be victims of Tatro’s alleged misconduct. Tatro total career related losses have been estimated to be anywhere from $10 million to $100 million and may potentially involve as many as 1,000 clients. On July 30, 2012, Tatro filed a petition for bankruptcy with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York.

Tatro began his securities career in 1975 and worked at six different broker-dealers before becoming associated with First Allied in November 2003. After Tatro left First Allied he operated Biltmore Wealth Advisors, LLC, an investment advisory firm in Phoenix, Arizona. Tatro also operated Eagle Steward Wealth Management, an investment advisory firm. Tatro’s wife, colleague, and business partner, Mary Helen Caprice Mallett (Mallett) has also advised Tatro clients and has been accused of recommending the same or similar speculative investments that characterizes Tatro’s practice.