securities attorney

FINRA Sanctions Felt & Company Over Leveraged ETF Recommendations to Clients

February 16, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned brokerage firm Felt & Company (Felt) alleging that between January 2009, and September 2012, Felt failed to establish and supervisory system that was reasonably designed to ensure that sales leveraged or inverse exchange-traded funds (Non-Traditional ETFs) complied with all applicable securities laws.

Feltl is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, has approximately 114 registered representatives operating out of eight branch offices in Minnesota and Illinois. Felt derives revenue from securities commissions, underwriting, and investment company activity and has been a FINRA member since 1975. This most recent FINRA action is not the first time the regulatory has brought an action concerning issues of how Felt sells securities products to investors. As we previously reported, FINRA sanctioned Feltl and imposed a $1,000,000 fine concerning allegations that the firm, between January 2008, and February 2012. failed to comply with the suitability, disclosure, and record-keeping requirements engaging in a penny stock business.

In the most recent disciplinary action, FINRA alleged that the securities laws requires a firm to have a reasonable basis for believing that a product is suitable for any customer before recommending any purchase of that product. In order to meet this requirement, a firm must understand the terms and features of the product including how they are designed to perform, how they achieve that objective, and the impact that market volatility on the product. In the case of Non-Traditional ETFs the use of leverage and the customer’s intended holding period are significant considerations in recommending these products.

FINRA Sanctions Former LPL Financial Broker Marc Baldinger Over Private CMO I/O Strip Sales

February 13, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned former LPL Financial LLC (LPL) broker Marc Baldinger (Baldinger) concerning allegations that between August 2010 and November 2012, Baldinger participated in private securities transactions (a/k/a “selling away”) without prior approval of LPL. In addition, FINRA alleged that in connection with these private securities transactions Baldinger failed to disclose his position as a managing partner of two limited liability companies.

Baldinger entered the securities industry on in 1989. Thereafter, from 2001 onward Baldinger was associated with LPL until Baldinger’s employment with LPL ended on November 24, 2012. On December 13, 2012, LPI, filed a Form U5 terminating Baldinger’s registration.

The FINRA rules require that all brokers report securities transactions to their employer. However, FINRA alleged that between August 19, 2010 and November 24, 2012, Baldinger introduced 20 customers to brokerage firms by the initials “RS” and “AFS” and purchased inverse strips of Government National Mortgage Association Interest Only bonds (GNMA I/Os). According to FINRA, the 20 clients invested a combined total of at least $12 million in GNMA I/Os. FINRA found that Baldinger received compensation for these investment recommendations of approximately $233,427.

FINRA Brings Action Against Randor Research, William Scholander, and Talman Harris

February 4, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently brought a complaint against brokerage firm Randor Research & Trading Company (Randor) and registered representatives William Scholander (Scholander) and Talman Harris (Harris) alleging that between February 2011, through March 2013, Radnor displayed a pattern of disregard of its supervisory obligations concerning reporting, disclosure, and compliance responsibilities. FINRA alleged that this disregard included the firm’s failure to report customer complaints, failure to update a registered representative’s Form U4 and failure to ensure that material information was disclosed to customers, and to maintain and enforce adequate supervisory systems and written procedures.

Radnor has been a member of FINRA since 2004, is based in the Philadelphia area and had one branch office in New York. The firm has 17 registered persons working in the two branches. Scholander has been registered with 13 different firms since 1998. Harris has been registered with 16 different firms since 1998. Harris was the branch manager of the New York office during the period.

FINRA alleged that in late 2011, Radnor failed to report two customer complaints made against its brokers. One customer claimed that certain trades were unauthorized and made a demand for damages. According to FINRA, another potential customer claimed that a broker of the firm had participated in unethical or illegal behavior possibly market manipulation. Despite those claims, FINRA claimed that Radnor chose not to report the complaints as required by FINRA rules. FINRA also alleged that Radnor also chose not to report the unauthorized trade complaint on the Form U4 of Scholander and Scholander knowingly failed to ensure that his Form U4 was timely updated to reflect the complaint. As a result, FINRA alleged that both Radnor and Scholander willfully violated the FINRA rules.

FINRA Bars Broker Michael Evangelista Over Real Estate Securities Sales

January 30, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently barred broker Michael Evangelista (Evangelista) concerning allegations that between 2006 and 2011, Evangelista referred approximately six of his firm customers to invest in real estate securities issued by ABC Corp. (ABC), an entity that purportedly invested in real estate in Pennsylvania and neighboring states. FINRA alleged that the customer investments totaled over $3 million while Evangelista received at least $50,000 in compensation in connection with these referrals. FINRA found that Evangelista did not disclose to his brokerage firms that these customers were purchasing securities away from the firm, a practice known as “selling away”, or that he was being compensated in connection with his referrals.

Evangelista entered the securities industry in 1993. From 1994 to December 2012, he was registered with the following FINRA firms: (1) Capital Analysts, Inc. until to December 2007; (2) Cambridge Investment Research, Inc. from January 2008 to May 2012; and (3) Comprehensive Asset Management and Servicing, Inc. (Comprehensive) from May 2012 to December 2012. Comprehensive filed a Form U5 on December 20, 2012, stating that Evangelista was terminated because he became the subject of a customer complaint.

FINRA alleged that starting in 2006, Evangelista participated in meetings with certain of his brokerage clients the president of ABC to have the clients invest with ABC. The investments were for the development of specific parcels of property. When client’s invested in ABC they acquired either promissory notes issued or limited partnership agreements. The promissory notes allegedly provided for a repayment of principal plus interest. Investments in the form of limited partnership agreements had clients receiving a percentage interest in the partnership that would yield a minimum return in the form of interest paid on a per annum basis and a return of principal.

FINRA Fines Sigma Financial Over Supervisory Failures Part I

January 26, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned Sigma Financial Corporation (Sigma Financial) alleging from April 25, 2011, through June 24, 2012, supervisory deficiencies existed at Sigma in specific areas of Sigma’s supervisory systems and procedures including the firm’s supervision of registered representatives, the firm’s suitability processes and procedures, some of the firm’s implemented procedures relating to customer information, and also concerning branch office registration for trade execution.

Sigma Financial has been a FINRA member since 1983, and currently has a total of 685 registered representatives operating from 436 branch office locations. Sigma conducts a general securities business.

FINRA found that Sigma Financial’s supervisory and compliance functions were conducted by B/D OPS, LLC (BD OPS) from a central location in Ann Arbor, Michigan. FINRA found that BD OPS also provided supervisory and compliance services for Sigma Financial’s affiliated investment advisor and another broker-dealer. As a result, FINRA determined that a mere 35 supervisory personnel working for BD OPS were responsible for supervising a total of 1,274 registered representatives and 854 branch offices. FINRA found that Sigma Financial’s reliance upon BD OPS to remotely conduct all of the supervisory and compliance functions for Sigma Financial’s independent contractors and branch offices was not reasonable.

FINRA Bars Broker Chase Casson For Failing to Respond to Inquiries Over Private Transactions

January 23, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently barred broker Chase Casson (Casson) alleging that Casson failed to provide documents and information to FINRA in response to demands made to investigate the broker’s activities. On various dates in August and September 2014, FINRA sent Casson a request for documents concerning allegations that he participated in a private securities transactions. The details concerning the exact nature of the alleged transaction and Casson’s role are not yet fully known.

The allegations against Casson are consistent with a potential “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. 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 such products. In order to properly supervise their brokers each firm is required to establish and maintain written supervisory procedures and implement such policies in order to monitor the activities of each registered representative. 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 investments are either not registered or not real. 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.

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.

Wedbush Securities Supervisory Failures Exposed in Numerous Regulatory Actions Part I

January 20, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

In a slew of regulatory actions, Wedbush Securities, Inc. (Wedbush) has the firm under fire for its failure to supervise the activities of its employees in various respects. These complaints were recently capped off with an affirmation by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) appeals body, the National Adjudicatory Council (NAC), decision imposing more than $300,000 in fines and a month-long suspension of top executives for failures in their reporting duties. Decision Here.

Wedbush is a brokerage and investment banking firm founded by Edward Wedbush (Mr. Wedbush) and another individual in 1955. Wedbush registered with the NASD in 1955 and NYSE in the early 1970s. At present the firm employs approximately 900 employees. Mr. Wedbush joined the securities industry in 1955 when he formed the firm and has been registered as a general securities principal and representative since the firm’s inception.

A company’s culture is set at by those at the top running the company. And judging by the recent decision, Wedbush’s supervisory culture calls into question the handling of its client’s assets. The recent regulatory woes and saga first started on October 4, 2010, when FINRA’s Department of Enforcement filed a five-cause complaint alleging that during various periods between January 2005, and July 2010, Wedbush failed to properly report 81 disclosable events resulting in 38 Form RE-3 reporting violations, 113 Form U4 and U5 violations, and nine statistical reporting violations concerning customer complaints. FINRA also alleged that the firm and Mr. Wedbush failed to supervise the firm’s regulatory reporting.

FINRA Fines 10 Brokerage Firms $43.5 Million For Conflicts of Interests in Toys “R” Us IPO

January 16, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The merry go-round of Wall Street fraud continues. After the housing crisis where Wall Street sold terrible home loans to investors we’ve arrived back to dot.com era frauds of selling favorable research. Enter the recent fine imposed by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) that 10 of the largest brokerage firms were fined a total of $43.5 million for allowing their equity research analysts to solicit investment banking business by offering favorable research coverage in connection with the 2010 planned initial public offering of Toys “R” Us.

FINRA fines are as follows:

Barclays Capital Inc. – $5 million

Brokerage Firm Spotlight: Investor Claims of Churning Against Rockwell Global Capital

January 13, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP is investigating Rockwell Global Capital LLC (Rockwell) after having filed a complaint on behalf of an investor. We have posted on several previous occasions that brokers at Rockwell have been alleged by dozens of investors in recent years of churning client accounts. In Three Rockwell Global Capital Brokers Accused of Securities Misconduct by Customers we wrote about three brokers, Robert E. Lee Jr. (Robert Lee), Douglas Guarino (Guarino), and Lawrence Lee (Lee) that have been the subject of at least 29 combined customer complaints. All three brokers have been accused by clients of churning their accounts and making unsuitable investment recommendations.

Recently, an arbitration panel awarded a customer and ordered Rockwell to pay $119,000 in compensation together with costs and attorneys fees due to claims that included excessive trading.

What is “churning”? This type of securities misconduct includes investment trading activity that serves no reasonable purpose for the investor and is transacted in order for the broker to generate commissions. The elements that an arbitration panel will look at to establish a churning claim, a species of securities fraud, are excessive transactions of securities, broker control over the account, and intent to defraud the investor by obtaining unlawful commissions. A similar claim, excessive trading, under FINRA’s suitability rule involves just the first two elements.