securities fraud lawyer

Morgan Stanley Broker Lance Slater Terminated After Allegations Of Personal Loans and Excessive Trading

January 18, 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 Lance Slater (Slater). According to BrokerCheck records there are at least 2 customer complaints against Slater and one employment separation. The most recent customer complaint against Slater alleges that from 2013 Slater borrowed $210,000 from the client and then tried to hide that fact from her children and has not since then paid the client back. The client also alleges that Slater engaged in unsuitable investments and excessive trading.

Shortly thereafter Morgan Stanley discharged Slater making allegations Slater failed to adhere to the firm’s guidance regarding certain sales activity and possible involvement in an unreported loan from a customer while at a prior firm.

As a background, when brokers engage in excessive trading, sometimes referred to as churning, the broker will typical trade in and out of securities, sometimes even the same stock, many times over a short period of time. Often times the account will completely “turnover” every month with different securities. This type of investment trading activity in the client’s account serves no reasonable purpose for the investor and is engaged in only to profit the broker through the generation of commissions created by the trades. Churning is considered a species of securities fraud. The elements of the claim 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. Certain commonly used measures and ratios used to determine churning help evaluate a churning claim. These ratios look at how frequently the account is turned over plus whether or not the expenses incurred in the account made it unreasonable that the investor could reasonably profit from the activity.

Recovery Options For Investors of Zachary Bader’s Churning and Unsuitable VIX Trading

December 30, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The securities fraud attorneys of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating potential recovery options for investors with broker Zachary Bader (Bader). Recently The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) brought an enforcement action (FINRA No. 20130363873) which resulted in a permanent bar form the securities industry. The complaint alleged that from February 2012 through July 2013, Bader engaged in excessive trading (churning) in three customer accounts with a reckless disregard for the interests of those customers. FINRA also alleged that from March 2012 through January 2013, Bader made unsuitable recommendations of a complex Exchange Traded Note (ETN), the iPath S&P 500 VIX Short Term Futures ETN (VXX) to 21 customers without a reasonable basis to believe that the ETN was suitable for at least some investors.

Bader entered the securities industry in 2011 with brokerage firm Brookstone Securities, Inc. From February 2012 until August 2013, Bader was associated with Craig Scott Capital, LLC. Thereafter, from August 2013 until August 2013, Bader was associated with National Securities Corporation out of the firm’s Melville, New York office location.

As a background, when brokers engage in churning the broker will typical trade in and out of securities, sometimes even the same stock, many times over a short period of time. Often times the account will completely “turnover” every month with different securities. This type of investment trading activity in the client’s account serves no reasonable purpose for the investor and is engaged in only to profit the broker through the generation of commissions created by the trades. Churning is considered a species of securities fraud. The elements of the claim 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. Certain commonly used measures and ratios used to determine churning help evaluate a churning claim. These ratios look at how frequently the account is turned over plus whether or not the expenses incurred in the account made it unreasonable that the investor could reasonably profit from the activity.

Constellation Wealth Advisors Terminates Brandon Gioffre After Customers Complain about TMG Energy Systems Investment

December 25, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The investment lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints against broker Brandon Gioffre (Gioffre). There are at least 3 customer complaints against Gioffre. In addition, there is one employment separations disclosed. The most recent customer complaint alleged that three individuals sent a letter to the firm on July 15, 2015 alleging that Gioffre, acting on behalf of the firm, solicited investments in TMG Energy Systems and they suffered damages of $881,657 through the investments. According to Constellation Wealth Advisors LLC (Constellation Wealth Advisors), the firm neither offered the investment nor approved of the private securities transaction or outside business activity engaged in by Gioffre. The conduct allegedly engaged in by Gioffre is also referred to as “selling away” in the industry.

Gioffre entered the securities industry in 1998. Between June 2009 and June 2014, Gioffre was associated with Morgan Stanley. From July 2014 until August 2015, Gioffre was associated with brokerage firm Constellation Wealth Advisors until he was discharged from the firm.

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 when these incidents occur the brokerage firm claims ignorance of their advisor’s activities the firm is obligated under the FINRA rules 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 misconduct often occurs where brokerage firms 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.

Non-Traded Business Development Companies (BDCs) About to Get Even Riskier?

December 17, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

As one of the largest non-traded real estate investment trust (Non-Traded REIT) company, AR Capital, closes shop on new offerings, a growing non-traded product lines up to take retail investor’s money. Enter the non-traded business development company (BDCs). BDCs have been a growing asset class that markets itself to investors as a non-stock market, non-real estate, high yield alternative investment. However, BDCs appear to be just as speculative, suffer from high commissions and fees, and are inappropriate for most investors just like Non-Traded REITs. Indeed, according to a Wealth Management Article front-end load fees on Non-Traded BDCs are typically around 11.5 to 12 percent. In addition, BDCs also usually have an incentive compensation following the “two and twenty” rule where the fund charges two percent of assets in management fees and 20% of capital gains based upon performance.

As we have reported in the past, BDCs make loans to and invest in small to mid-size, developing, or financially troubled companies either broadly or in a particular sector, such as oil and gas. 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. Non-Traded BDCs offer investors similar risks as Non-Traded REITs including higher fees, less liquidity, and less corporate transparency. The major difference is that Non-Traded BDCs are regulated under the 1940 Act that governs mutual funds and that a BDC is valued quarterly.

The largest player in this space is Franklin Square Capital Partners which manages multiple Non-Traded BDC funds including the FS Investment Corporation (FSIC) FS Investment Corporation II (FSIC II), FS Investment Corporation III (FSIC III), FS Investment Corporation IV (FSIC IV), FS Energy and Power Fund (FSEP), and FS Global Credit Opportunities. Franklin Square’s BDC assets were approximately $14.5 billion under management as of March 31, 2015. Other firms seeking to capitalize on the BDC wave including CNL Securities’ Corporate Capital Trust, ICON Investment’s CĪON Investment Corporation fund (CĪON); and American Realty Capital’s Business Development Corporation of America II.

Broker Investigation: VSR Financial Services Advisor Robert Bragg

December 16, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The investment lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints against broker Robert Bragg (Bragg). There are at least 4 customer complaints against Bragg. The customer complaints against Bragg allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, misrepresentations, negligence, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty among other claims. The claims appear to relate to allegations regard direct participation products and limited partnerships such as equipment leasing and non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs). Our firm has written numerous times about investor losses in these types of programs such as equipment leasing programs like LEAF Equipment Leasing Income Funds I-IV and ICON Leasing Funds Eleven and Twelve. Investors are destined to lose money in these investments because the costs and fees associated with these investments make significant returns virtual impossibility. Yet for all of their costs investors are in no way compensated for the additional risks of these products.

The most recent complaint was filed in February 2015 and alleged unsuitable investments for investments made between 2005 though August 2013 causing $460,488 in damages. Another complaint filed in November 2014 alleged breach of fiduciary duty among other claims for investments made in October 2007 though September 2010 causing $322,432.

Bragg entered the securities industry in March 2004. Since March 2004, Bragg has been registered with VSR Financial Services, Inc. out of the firm’s Colorado Springs, Colorado office location.

FINRA Investigates NMS Capital Advisors Broker Sperry Younger

December 14, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) investigation into broker Sperry Younger (Younger). In addition, there are at least 2 customer complaints against Younger, 6 judgments or liens, one financial matter disclosed. FINRA’s investigation relates to possible violations of NASD Rule 3010 and FINRA Rules 2010. Rule 3010 is FINRA’s rule concerning the industry’s requirement to supervise the activities of brokers. The customer complaints against Younger allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker misappropriated funds and made forged documents among other claims.

According to the disclosures, Younger recently filed for Bankruptcy in August 2015. Prior to bankruptcy filing Younger had a number of tax liens against him including a lien filed on April 2014 $3,037, a civil judgment of $9,678 on January 25, 2013, a civil judgement of $20,001 on July 11, 2012, a civil judgement of $21,890 on April 30, 2012, a civil judgement of $2,667 on March 22, 2012, and a civil judgment of $7,595 on January 10, 2012. A broker with large liens are an important consideration for investors to weigh when dealing with a financial advisor. An advisor may be conflicted to offer high commission investments to customers in order to satisfy liens and debts that may not be in the client’s best interests.

Younger entered the securities industry in January 1996. From May 2006 until May 2010, Younger was associated with Charles Morgan Securities, Inc. From May 2010 until October 2012, Younger was associated with John Carris Investments LLC. Thereafter, from October 2012 until April 2014, Younger was a registered representative of NMS Capital Securities, LLC (NMS). From July 2014 until April 2015, Younger was associated with Rothschild Lieberman LLC. From July 2014 until June 2015, Younger was associated with J. Streicher Capital LLC. From June 2015 until August 2015, Younger was associated with Avenir Financial Group. Finally, since October 2015, Younger has been registered with NMS out of the firm’s New York, New York office location.

Gana LLP Investigation: Customer Complaints Against Howard Slater

December 13, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints against broker Howard Slater (Slater). In addition, The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) brought an enforcement action (FINRA No. 2015046156301) against Slater. There are at least 18 customer complaints against Slater and 2 regulatory actions. The customer complaints against Slater allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, misrepresentations, negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and unauthorized trading among other claims.

The most recent customer complaint was filed in November 2013 and alleges unsuitable investments, fraud, and negligence concerning investments in alternative investments in real estate investments. The complaint seeks $90,000 in damages. In another complaint filed in July 2013, a customer complained that Slater misinformed her regarding the risks of three non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs).

In a FINRA regulatory action against Slater, the agency alleged that in February 2008 and August 2008, Slater sent emails to two customers in connection with their purchases of IMH Secured Loan Fund, LLC (IMH Fund) that contained misrepresentations regarding the features of the IMH Fund. In addition, according to FINRA, in March 2008, Slater sent an email to a customer that contained exaggerated and misleading statements about the safety of the IMH Fund. Finally, FINRA found that in April 2008, Slater caused an SAI customer’s account records to reflect false annual income and net worth information that caused the business records maintained by his firm to be inaccurate.

FINRA Sanctions Braymen, Lambert and Noel Securities and Shannon Braymen Over Private Placement Supervisory Failures

December 9, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) brought an enforcement action (FINRA No. 2011025610501) against brokerage firm Braymen, Lambert and Noel Securities, Ltd. (BLNS) and the firm’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) Shannon Braymen (Braymen) resulting in a monetary sanction. FINRA’s allegations were that from April 2007 to November 2011 BLNS, acting through Braymen, failed to supervise its private placement securities business and the activities of brokers located in two offices. The firm was also accused of failing to register those two branch office locations. In addition, FINRA found that BLNS failed to conduct or to adequately document branch office inspections, and had inadequate supervisory systems and written supervisory procedures for non-branch office locations. Finally, FINRA found that BLNS and Braymen failed to capture and retain certain email correspondence.

BLNS is a member of FINRA and registered as a broker-dealer since March 2003, as a full-service broker-dealer. BLNS currently employs approximately 24 brokers and operates out of 4 branch offices. The firm conducts a securities business in corporate debt securities, over-the-counter equity securities, US government securities, mutual funds, options, private placements and variable contracts. BLNS is also authorized to underwrite corporate securities, proprietary trading and investment advisory services. Braymen entered the securities industry in February 1995. During Braymen’s career she has obtained various securities licenses and had supervisory responsibility for each of the supervisory areas complained of by FINRA.

FINRA’s findings highlighted supervisory deficiencies in a number of areas. One of FINRA’s findings was that BLNS and two brokers located in an unregistered branch office in San Antonio, Texas participated in nine private placement offerings. BLNS and Braymen were accused of failing to adequately supervise the firm’s participation in these nine offerings. FINRA found that the firm had no documentation of principal review and approval of any of the private placement documents, no documentation that a principal of the firm had conducted due diligence, and no documentation of principal review and approval of customer subscription documents. Review of subscription documents are required to determine the suitability of the investments for customers.

SEC Sanctions Gary Arford Over Allegations of Securities Fraud and Misappropriation

December 9, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought an enforcement action against broker Gary Arford (Arford) resulting in a monetary sanctions of $4,226,684. In addition, according to the BrokerCheck records kept by FINRA, Arford has been the subject of at least 10 customer complaints. The customer complaints against Arford allege unsuitable investments, misrepresentations, and fraud among other claims. Many of the complaints involve products such as oil and gas and penny stocks. Arford was also permitted to resign from Comprehensive Wealth Management, LLC (Comprehensive Wealth Management) after allegations were made that Arford attempted to directly settle a customer complaint. In March 2014, Arford was also terminated from Independent Financial Group, LLC (IFG) after allegations were made that Arford was the subject of customer complaints.

The most recent complaint against Arford alleged $560,000 in damages concerning allegations that Arford as an owner of Comprehensive Wealth Management breach his fiduciary duty by recommending unsuitable oil and gas products from 2011 through 2014 and misrepresented the investments. Another customer complaint filed in September 2014 alleges similar issues with oil and gas and penny stock investment made between 2012 and 2013 which resulted in $500,000 in alleged damages.

In the SEC action, the regulator alleged that between approximately December 2010 and October 2013, Arford acted as an investment adviser to a private fund (Fund) and provided advice for real estate-related investments. The SEC alleged that Arford defrauded the Fund and its investors in at least four ways by: 1) inducing the Fund to commit a total of $4 million to an investment in a company, referred to as Suburban Hotel, that was purportedly planning to build and operate a hotel on undeveloped land in Seattle by misrepresenting and concealing material facts about the company’s debt and the encumbrances; 2) after obtaining the Fund’s investment commitment Respondent took personal ownership of the company’s undeveloped property, and then pledged it as collateral for personal debts; 3) inducing the Fund to continue fulfilling its investment commitment by concealing his personal ownership and use of the company’s undeveloped property and by misrepresenting and hiding material facts about the use of Fund assets; and 4) by misappropriating Fund assets for unrelated purposes.

Broker Investigation: Customer Complaints Against Frank Marinelli

December 8, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints against Frank Marinelli (Marinelli). According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Marinelli has been the subject of at least 3 customer complaints, 1 employment termination, 2 judgment or liens, and 1 criminal matter. The customer complaints against Marinelli allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, churning (excessive trading), misrepresentations, negligence, fraud, and unauthorized trading other claims.

The most recent customer complaint was filed in March 2014 and alleges unsuitable investments and churning causing $120,000 in damages. Another complaint filed in March 2012 alleges high pressure sales tactics unauthorized trading and mismanagement of the client’s account leading to $200,000 in damages.

Marinelli also has two liens listed, both filed in 2010 related to taxes. One lien is for $123,240 and the other is for $41,306. A broker with large liens are an important consideration for investors to weigh when dealing with a financial advisor. An advisor may be conflicted to offer high commission investments to customers in order to satisfy liens and debts that may not be in the client’s best interests.