securities attorney

Top Merrill Lynch Broker Thomas Buck Terminated Under Unusual Circumstances

April 22, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to news sources, Thomas Buck (Buck) and his daughter Ann Buck, were recently terminated by Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (Merrill Lynch), now known as Bank of America, NA (Bank of America) under unusual circumstances. Buck’s team managed nearly $1.5 billion in investor assets at the time. Buck has been associated with Merrill Lynch since 1982 according to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) records and became one of the company’s largest producers.

According to news sources, Buck was terminated for allegedly making unauthorized trades in client accounts. Advisors are not allowed to engage in unauthorized trading. Such trading occurs when a broker sells securities without the prior authority from the investor. The broker must first discuss all 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.

The termination occurred on March 6, 2015, and stunned the firm’s other employees because the termination appeared out of the blue and without explanation leading to rumors. One person was quoted in the news saying “There is a lot more out there. I think it’s a little bit of heavy-handedness on Merrill’s part. Tom was shocked.”

Former Ameriprise Advisor Jack McBride Discharged Over Soliciting Leveraged ETFs

April 22, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Jack McBride (McBride) has been the subject of at least 4 customer complaints over the course of his career. Customers have filed to recent complaints against McBride alleging that the broker made unsuitable investments in leveraged ETFs and the use of margin. McBride has been registered with FINRA since 1994. From that time until August 2014, McBride was registered with Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. (Ameriprise). In August 2014, Ameriprise discharged McBride claiming that the broker violated the company’s policies relating to making a settlement and for soliciting prohibited securities.

All advisers have a fundamental responsibility to deal fairly with investors including making suitable investment recommendations. Part of the suitability requirement is that the broker must have a reasonable basis to believe, based on appropriate research and diligence, that all recommendations are suitable for at least some investors. Thus, the product or investment strategy being recommended must be appropriate for at least some investors and the advisers must convey the potential risks and rewards before bringing it to an investor’s attention.

In the case of Non-Traditional ETFs, these products contain drastically different risk qualities from traditional ETFs that most investors and many brokers are not aware of. While traditional ETFs simply seek to mirror an index or benchmark, Non-Traditional ETFs use a combination of derivatives instruments and debt to multiply returns on underlining assets, often attempting to generate 2 to 3 times the return of the underlining asset class. Non-Traditional ETFs can also be used to return the inverse or the opposite result of the return of the benchmark.

Former Edward Jones Advisor Daniel Retzke Barred Over Private Securities Investigation

April 21, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned and barred broker Daniel Retzke (Retzke) concerning allegations Retzke refused to appear for on-the-record testimony requested by FINRA in connection with an investigation into possible private securities transactions and the soliciting of a loan (also referred to as “selling away”). According to FINRA BrokerCheck records Retzke has disclosed outside business activities include Country Inn & Suites, Galena Lodging Photography, Galena Lodging, and Retzke LLC. It is unclear whether FINRA’s investigation concerns these particular outside business activity. In addition, there have been at least three customer complaints filed against Retzke some which allege unsuitable investments.

ln December 1983, Retzke first became registered with a FINRA firm. In January 1992, Retzke became associated with Edward Jones. On November 13, 2014, Edward Jones filed a Uniform Termination Notice with FINRA disclosing that Retzke was discharged on October 14, 2014.

According to FINRA, in January, 2015, the agency began investigating whether Retzke had engaged in a private securities transaction and solicited a loan from a client. As part of its investigation, on January 30, 2015, FINRA sent a request to Retzke. According to FINRA, Retzke stated on a call with FINRA staff on February 3, 2015, that he will not cooperate with the investigation. Consequently, Retzke was barred by FINRA.

LPL Financial Advisor Raymond Schmidt Accused of Borrowing Millions for Hawaii Real Estate Investments

April 15, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently barred broker Raymond Schmidt (Schmidt) due to Schmidt’s refusal to respond to requests made by the agency. FINRA found that from approximately May 2009, through November 2012, Schmidt borrowed approximately $2.25 million from seven customers of LPL Financial LLC (LPL) and also engaged in outside business activities without notifying the firm. FINRA also alleged that between 2009 and 2014, Schmidt submitted five false compliance questionnaires and three false disclosures of outside business activities and loans to the firm.

In July 2006, Schmidt became associated with LPL. In a termination notice dated September 24, 2014, the LPL reported that on August 25, 2014, Schmidt had resigned while under internal review by LPL.

FINRA found that in or around May 2009, Schmidt purchased a real estate investment in Hawaii that he developed into a vacation rental property. In May 2012 that property opened for business. FINRA found that Schmidt was the sole owner and operator of the property and the business but failed to notify LPL of this outside business activity. FINRA alleged that from approximately May 2009, through November 2012, Schmidt borrowed $2,254,818 from seven LPL customers for the purpose of purchasing the real estate in Hawaii and constructing a vacation rental property.

Former IBN Financial Broker Brian Exford Barred Over Private Securities Sales

April 10, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned and barred broker Brian Exford (Exford) concerning allegations Exford refused to appear for on-the-record testimony requested by FINRA in connection with an investigation into possible private securities transactions (also referred to as “selling away”). According to FINRA BrokerCheck records Exford was disclosed outside business activities include Ives Hill Retirement. It is unclear whether FINRA’s investigation concerns this particular outside business activity. In addition, there is one customer complaint pending alleging unsuitable investments in a secondary market pension.

ln November 2002, Exford first became registered with FINRA as an Investment Company Products and Variable Contracts Representative (Series 6). From August 2009 through October 2012, Exford was registered with IBN Financial Services, Inc. (IBN Financial). Thereafter, from November 2012 to March 2015, Exford was registered through State Farm VP Management Corp.

According to FINRA, in January, 2014, the agency began investigating whether Exford had engaged in a private securities transaction. As part of its investigation, on January 13, 2015, FINRA sent a request to Exford’s attorney for on-the-record testimony. According to FINRA, Exford’s attorney stated on a call with FINRA staff on January 30, 2015, that he will not appear for on-the-record testimony at any time. Consequently, Exford was barred by FINRA.

Former PFS Investments Broker Michael Korson Barred Over My Coupon Genie Investment Sales

April 8, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned and barred broker Michael Korson (Korson) concerning allegations that from February 2011 through August 2012, Korson failed to disclose to PFS Investments, Inc. (PFS) his involvement with an outside business (also referred to as “selling away”) called My Coupon Genie, Inc. (My Coupon Genie). In addition, FINRA alleged that between September 2011 and May 2014, while registered with PFS and also HBW Securities LLC (HBW) Korson participated in private securities transactions involving My Coupon Genie without providing prior written notice to either firm. FINRA also found that Korson misused My Coupon Genie investor funds by charging personal expenses to the company’s credit card.

Korson first became registered with FINRA on in 1991 as an Investment Company Products/Variable Contracts Representative (Series 6) representative with PFS. Thereafter, on February 21, 2013, Korson’s registration with PFS was terminated and from January 27, 2014 through July 21, 2014, Korson was registered with HBW.

According to FINRA, Korson is the founder, chief executive officer, board member, and majority owner of My Coupon Genie, which purports to provides an on-line platform for retailers to share promotional offers on goods and services with consumers. PFS required its brokers to disclose and obtain preapproval for all outside business activities. FINRA found that PFS received notice of Korson’s involvement in My Coupon Genie on August 2, 2012, 18 months after Korson’s first involvement in the company.

Gana LLP Broker Investigation: Patric Baccam (a/k/a Khanh Sengpraseuth) Promissory Note Sales

April 3, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints concerning Patric Baccam (Baccam) (a/k/a Khanh Sengpraseuth) sale of promissory notes in securities transactions that appear to have been away from the firm (also referred to as “selling away”). According to The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) BrokerCheck records Baccam was registered with brokerage firm Centaurus Financial, Inc. (Centaurus) from February 2002 until December 2011. According to the records Baccam’s outside business activities include flipping real estate, vending machine leasing, and health and life insurance.

Baccam has also been subject to at least five customer complaints. Some of these complaints allege that Baccam solicited clients to invest in promissory notes through The Moret Group LLC, The PR Group, and The Precision Research Group, LLC. The complaints allege fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of California securities laws.

The allegations against Baccam are consistent with “selling away” securities violation. In the industry the term selling away refers to when a financial advisor solicits investments in companies, promissory notes, or other securities that are not pre-approved by the broker’s affiliated firm. However, even though the brokerage firm claim ignorance of their advisor’s activities, under the FINRA rules, a brokerage firm owes a duty to properly monitor and supervise its employees in order to detect and prevent brokers from offering investments in this fashion. In order to properly supervise their brokers each firm is required to have procedures in order to monitor the activities of each advisor’s activities and interaction with the public. Selling away often occurs in brokerage firm that either fail to put in place a reasonable supervisory system or fail to actually implement that system. Supervisory failures allow brokers to engage in unsupervised misconduct that can include all manner improper conduct including selling away.

Ameriprise Broker Scott N. Smith Sanctioned Over Falsification of Firm Records

April 2, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

Please note: This article does NOT relate to Scott D. Smith – a current Ameriprise Advisor.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker Scott Smith (Smith) concerning allegations that between October 2009 and January 2013, Smith mismarked as unsolicited order tickets for thousands of trades that were actually solicited by the broker. By doing so, FINRA found that Smith caused Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc.’s (Ameriprise) books and records to be inaccurate.

Smith entered the securities industry in 1982. Since 2005, Smith has be associated with Ameriprise until his registration was terminated in February 2013. FINRA alleged that from October 2009 through January 2013, Smith executed 8,169 trades. According to FINRA, Smith marked the order tickets for 6,207 of those trades, or 76%, as being unsolicited. An unsolicited trade means that the broker did not make a recommendation to the client to purchase the particular security. By marking a trade as unsolicited, the broker typically is claiming that the investment opportunity was not brought to the client’s attention by the broker and instead the client instructed the broker to execute the trade on his or her behalf.

EDI Financial Sanctioned Over Private Placement Supervisory Failures

April 1, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm EDI Financial, Inc. (EDI Financial) alleging that the firm’s business involved the sales of private placement offerings. From approximately January 2008 through November 2014, FINRA alleged that a substantial portion of EDI Financial’s revenue came from sales of private placements. But despite the importance of private placement sales to EDI Financial’s bottom line FINRA alleged that the firm failed to have adequate policies and procedures to supervise the sales of its private placement activities.

EDI Financial has been a registered broker-dealer since 1986. The firm conducts a general securities business which includes the sales of private placements and mutual funds. The firm has 70 brokers that operate out of its 22 branch offices, with headquarters in Irving, Texas.

FINRA found that EDI Financial failed to adopt and implement a supervisory systems reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the firm’s suitability obligations for the solicitation and sale of private placements. For example, FINRA determined that the firm lacked adequate written procedures concerning the what concentration of a customer’s assets could be allocated to private placements. Additionally, FINRA alleged that the firm did not effectively monitor customers’ exposure to private placements.

Foothill Securities Fined $210,000 Over Supervisory Failures

March 31, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned brokerage firm Foothill Securities, Inc. (Foothill) alleging between May 17, 2010, and September 16, 2012, Foothill did not have an adequate supervisory system and written procedures to monitor its securities business, failed to follow the supervisory system, and failed to establish and enforce policies reasonably designed to supervise the firm’s securities business. Also included in FIRNA’s complaint was Stephen Shipp, Jr. (Shipp), as CCO of Foothill, FINRA alleged that he was responsible for the firm’s supervisory system, its written procedures, and the enforcement of its supervisory system causing the violations.

Foothill is a dually registered broker-dealer and investment advisor firm and has been a member of FINRA since 1962. The firm has approximately 255 registered brokers operating from approximately 138 branch offices. The firm conducts a general securities business in the following products: equities, mutual funds, corporate and municipal debt, US government securities, oil and gas interests, options, private placements, direct participation programs, and variable contracts.

FINRA alleged that Foothill’s supervisory procedures were deficient in many ways. A small sample of FINRA’s findings include that between May 17, 2010 and September 16, 2012, Foothill acting through Shipp: (1) heavily relied upon a proprietary data system for the supervision of its brokers securities transactions but that the trading information captured by the proprietary system was not consistently accurate or complete; (2) allowed nine of its ”dual Office of Supervisory Jurisdiction branch offices to have two producing managers supervise each other’s activities, even though this supervisory structure is prohibited under the FINRA Rules; (3) had an inadequate supervisory system relating to the heightened supervision of its producing managers; (4) the firm’s procedures required all producing managers’ correspondence to be forwarded to the home office for review and approval by the CCO but that procedures failed to specify the details of what the CCO’s correspondence reviews would entail and how the reviews would be evidenced; (5) at least one producing manager never sent any of his correspondence to the CCO for review or approval which was not caught by the firm; (6) failed to adequately and accurately disclose the required details of certain outside business activities of its brokers in 34 of 87 sampled disclosures; (7) failed to timely update its registered representatives disclosures in at least 13 instances; (8) failed to timely file five customer complaints, and four other customer related disclosures with FINRA; (9) failed to evidence the daily review and approval of daily reports of approved private securities transactions for one of its registered representatives