securities fraud

LaSalle St. Securities Sanctioned Over Private Placements Part II

December 10, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

This article continues the examination of the findings by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in an acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC), concerning LaSalle St. Securities, LLC (LaSalle) private placement deficiencies. FINRA also found that LaSalle served as the placement agent for a 2009 private placement offering by Revitalight Operators, LLC. The private placement memorandum (PPM) stated investors would be entitled to a 9% “preferred return” on their outstanding investments prior but that this preferred return was not guaranteed and might never be paid. FINRA found that LaSalle was responsible for the PPM’s contents. The PPM contained a summary of financial projections which FINRA found contained assumptions that the total net return over six years would be $2.050 million and that investors’ capital contributions would be returned in the fiftieth month. The PPM stated that investors could receive a 27.13% annual return on investment. However, FINRA determined that the projected annual return were calculated using a flawed methodology.

Finally, FINRA alleged that member firms that using consolidated reports are communications with the public and must be clear, accurate, and not misleading. Firms should have systems in place to ensure that valuations provided regarding customer assets held at the firm are consistent with the firm’s official account statement distributed to the customer. The firm should also take reasonable steps to accurately reflect information regarding outside accounts and assets. If a firm is unable to adequately supervise the use of the reports then the firm must prohibit dissemination of the reports.

FINRA found that LaSalle had procedures in place governing consolidated reports. The procedures provided that the CCO or specifically designated principals, will review the consolidated reports to ensure adherence to all applicable rules. Despite the procedures, FINRA found that LaSalle had an inadequate system in place because the firm did not ensure that all representatives actually followed the proscribed procedures. FINRA determined that LaSalle’s training was limited to blast emails to brokers advising them that consolidated statements needed to be submitted to the home office for review as correspondence.

LaSalle St. Securities Fined Over Private Placement Sale Related Misconduct Part I

December 9, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in an acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC), sanctioned brokerage firm LaSalle St. Securities, LLC (LaSalle) over allegations that staff found certain deficiencies with respect to: 1) a private placement offering involving Seat Exchange Corporation where LaSalle failed to exercise adequate due diligence before allowing a broker to recommend the offering to four investors; 2) a private offering by Revitalight Operators, LLC, LaSalle distributed a private placement memorandum to potential investors that did not include material facts and used a flawed methodology for projecting return on investment; 3) an offering of Platinum Wealth Partners, Inc. (PWP) by one of its brokers the firm failed to supervise; and 4) the fact that LaSalle allowed its representatives to send consolidated reports to its customers but failed to adequately supervise those reports.

LaSalle has been registered with FINRA as a broker-dealer since 1976, has 232 registered representatives, 107 branch offices, and its principal place of business is in Chicago, Illinois. LaSalle has various business lines.

FINRA alleged that in April 2010, a broker with the initials “PL” sought the firm’s approval to recommend the purchase of shares in Seat Exchange Corporation, a Regulation D private placement to four customers. Seat Exchange had only one director, who also owned 21.5% of the company and the placement agent for offering was Chicago Investment Group (CIG). CIG was also an affiliated with Seat Exchange. According to FINRA, LaSalle had supervisory procedures requiring that all appropriate due diligence efforts on behalf of any private placement offering are undertaken and documented or that we obtain sufficient documentation from a third party that they have undertaken sufficient due diligence.

FINRA Sanctions Genworth Financial for Failing to Supervise Churning of Customer Accounts

December 3, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in an acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC) sanctioned brokerage firm Genworth Financial Securities Corporation (Genworth) n/k/a Cetera Financial Specialists, LLC (Cetera) concerning allegations that from July 2009, through June 2012, the firm failed to establish a supervisory system and enforce written supervisory procedures designed to identify and prevent unsuitable excessive trading and the churning of customer funds.

FINRA alleged that although Genworth’s written supervisory procedures explicitly provided for the monthly review of an Active Account Report, no such report actually existed. Further, FINRA found that Genworth had no other systems in place that would monitor active accounts for excessive trading. According to FINRA, the firm’s failure to have systems in place and the failure to enforce written supervisory procedures allowed at least one registered representative to churn a customer’s account in violation of anti-fraud rules.

Churning is considered a type of securities fraud because the broker places his own interests ahead of his customer and induces transactions in the customer’s account that are excessive in size and frequency in order to generate commissions for himself. In order to show that churning took place an investor must demonstrate that the broker exercised control over the account, that the broker engaged in excessive trading considering the objectives and nature of the account, and that the broker acted with intent.

FINRA and SEC Release Guidance on Avoiding Penny Stock Schemes

November 30, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

Recently, FINRA and the SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy issued an alert to warn investors that some low-priced “penny” stocks are being aggressively promoted to engage in investment fraud schemes. In many cases the stocks of dormant shell companies, businesses with nominal business operations, are susceptible to market manipulation. To help prevent these types of fraud, the SEC suspended trading in 255 dormant shell companies in February 2014.

The typical investment scheme concerns pump-and-dump frauds in which a fraudster deliberately buys shares of a very low-priced, thinly traded stock and then spreads false or misleading information to promote and inflate the stock’s price. The fraudster then dumps his shares causing a massive sell off and leaving his victims with worthless shares of stock. Among the more common schemes is a fraudsters who uses a dormant shell company to buy its shares and then claim that the company has developed a “new” product that has caused the price to jump higher or the company will announce new management.

The SEC provided 5 tips to avoid becoming a victim of a penny stock scheme.

Illinois Files Churning Complaint Against James Markoski

November 18, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

James Markoski (Markoski) recently had a complaint filed against him from the State of Illinois, Securities Department. According to the complaint Markoski has a history of churning accounts, or engaging in excessive trading that is designed to generate huge commissions at the expense of the customer.

Markoski’ entered the financial industry in the early 1970’s and until 1991, Markoski worked for Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (Merrill). Thereafter, from September 1991, through June 2010, Markoski was a registered representative of David A Noyes & Company. From June 2010, through April 2012, Markoski worked for Birkelbach Investment Securities, Inc. Finally, Markoski currently is associated with Forest Securities, Inc. Markoski has been subject to 9 customer arbitrations throughout his career. Virtually all of the customer complaints involve claims of churning and excessive trading activity in the customer’s account. It is rare for a broker to have a complaint filed against them. It is even more rare for a broker to have more than 2 complaints filed against them.

The Illinois Secretary of State alleged that Markoski alleged that Markoski has a penchant for targeting widows and senior women to engage in his fraudulent churning conduct. In one of the alleged churning instances, Markoski inherited a client’s account from one of his colleagues. The complaint alleges that upon inheriting the client’s account, Markoski began selling off the client’s bond holdings that the client was relying upon the income from. The selling of the bonds before maturity allegedly resulted in $175,000 in losses.

FINRA Declines Rule Requiring Brokerage Firms To Carry Insurance

November 5, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

According to a recent report, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has decided it cannot force firms to carry insurance for payment of awards granted by arbitration panels on behalf of investors who have lost money.

As a background, every investor who opens a brokerage account with an investment firm agrees to arbitrate their dispute before the FINRA. Even if an investor did not open an account with a brokerage firm the claim can still be arbitrated under the industries rules. FINRA is the investment industries self-regulatory organization for all brokerage firms operating in the United States, overseeing approximately 4,700 brokerage firms and 635,000 registered representatives. FINRA both enforces its own rules through regulatory actions and administers an arbitration forum for securities disputes.

Our firm has noticed a recent trend where small and even mid-sized firms fail to keep sufficient funds on hand to pay investors due to misconduct at the firm. These smaller firms sometimes fail to enact proper supervisory procedures and regulatory controls to prevent their brokers from engaging in wrongful conduct. Sometimes these firms simply do not have the resources to properly engage in the securities business lines they attempt to engage in. As a result investors are harmed and due to their small size, cannot be compensated. In 2012, brokerage firms failed to pay $50 million in awards to customers. In 2011, the number of unpaid awards totaled $51 million.

Ismail Elmas Admits to Stealing Over $1 Million From Investors

November 3, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

As we reported earlier, broker Ismail Elmas’ (Elmas) Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) BrokerCheck records show that the representative was recently discharged from CUSO Financial Services, LP (CUSO Financial) concerning allegations that the broker “converted client funds for personal use as well as participated in an unauthorized outside business activity involving investments without the firm approval…”

Thereafter, investors have come forward to complain that Elmas allegedly engaged in unauthorized activity and other wrongful acts. Then in late October, Elmas pleaded guilty in federal court in Alexandria, to a count of wire fraud. Elmas admitted that he bilked at least 10 investors out of $1 million to $7 million dollars. According to news sources, Assistant U.S. Attorney Chad Golder said in court that Elmas, whose d/b/a business Apple Financial Services, an affiliate of Apple Federal Credit Union, preyed upon elderly and widowed investors and used a variety of methods to hide stolen funds. One of the more salient aspects of Elmas’ fraud is that unlike many schemers, Elmas was not promising large or sky-high returns or pushing clients into complicated financial products.

Our firm represents investors who are the victims of schemes, like Elmas’, to hold the brokerage firm responsible. The brokerage firms that employ Elmas are responsible for supervising his conduct. Elmas’ scheme presents a classic “selling away” securities violation scenario. In selling away cases, a financial advisor solicits investments in companies, promissory notes, or private placements that were not approved by the broker’s affiliated firm. 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. When selling away activity occurs, it is often because the supervisory environment is deficient because the brokerage firm either fails to put in place a reasonable supervisory system or fails to actually implement that system and meet supervisory requirements.

Broker Stephen Campbell Sanctioned Over Churning Claim

October 31, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker Stephen Campbell (Campbell) concerning allegations that the broker engaged in churning in a client account. Campbell has been a broker since 1978. From November 12, 2004 through November 12, 2013, Campbell was registered with Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. (Oppenheimer).

Investment churning is trading activity characterized by purchasing and selling activity that is excessive and serves no practical purpose for the investor. Brokers engage in churning solely to generate commissions without regard for the client’s interests. In order to establish a churning claim the investor must show that the trading was first excessive and second that the broker had control over the investment strategy. 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.

In Campbell’s case, FINRA found that one of his customers was a 55 year old single mother who initially opened an account with Campbell in 2000. FINRA alleged that from January 2009, through September 2011, while exercising control over her accounts, Campbell excessively and unsuitable traded her accounts inconsistently with her investment objectives, financial situation and needs. FINRA determined that the trading activity resulted in an annualized turnover ratio of 15 and an annualized cost-to-equity ratio of 59% in her IRA account, and an annualized turnover ratio of 21 and an annualized cost-to-equity ratio of 120% in her individual account. During this period, FINRA determined that Campbell’s improper trading resulted in a collective loss of approximately $62,000, while generating total gross commissions of approximately $64,000.

FINRA Files Complaint Against Toni Chen Over Failure to Respond to Inquiries Relating to a Pyramid Scheme

October 27, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) brought a complaint against broker Toni Chen (Chen) concerning allegations that during the course of FINRA’s investigation into whether Chen was involved in a pyramid scheme that may also constitute “selling away” activities. Chen failed to respond to FINRA’s requests.

On October 18, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a Form U6 with FINRA regarding Chen’s activities disclosing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York had granted the SEC’s request for a temporary restraining order for an asset freeze and other emergency relief against Chen and other defendants. The SEC restraining order is in connection with an ongoing worldwide investment pyramid scheme targeting members of the Asian-American Community. Thereafter, FINRA commenced its own investigation into whether Chen while registered with a FINRA firm or had engaged in any violations of the securities laws. Until April 2012, Chen was registered with World Group Securities, Inc. Thereafter, and until August 2012, Chen was associated with Transamerica Financial Advisors, Inc. (Transamerica).

FINRA alleged that it made numerous requests seeking information and testimony from Chen. In spite of FINRA’s numerous requests, Chen failed to provide testimony and certain information requested by staff. Due to Chen’s failure to provide documents, FINRA brought the instant complaint.

FINRA Bars Broker Joseph Pappalardo Over Allegations of Sales of Coast-2-Coast Properties Securities to Customers

October 24, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) barred broker Joseph Pappalardo (Pappalardo) concerning allegations that between August 2008, and August 2012, Pappalardo, while associated with Financial Network Investment Corporation (n/k/a Cetera Advisor Network LLC), made fraudulent and misleading misrepresentations to a customer in the sale of private securities, converted customer funds for his personal use, engaged in private securities transactions (a/k/a “selling away”), failed to disclose several outside business activities, and failed to amend his U4.

Pappalardo joined Financial Network Investment Corporation in 2008 and was required to complete a several questionnaires including disclosures of outside business activities. In 2008, FINRA alleged that Pappalardo disclosed on the questionnaire that he had previously been involved with a real estate company he formed in 2003 called Coast-2-Coast Properties (C2C) that was in the business of buying, renovating, and selling houses but that the company was no longer in business. FINRA alleged that Pappalardo’s statement was false. In fact, FINRA found that Pappalardo was involved in several outside business activities that he failed to disclose to Cetera including ongoing involvement in C2C and its marketing arm Prosperity Financial Estate Planning and Insurance Services (Prosperity Financial).

Thereafter, FINRA found that Pappalardo solicited customers to invest in these businesses. In one instance, FINRA found that Pappalardo solicited the sale of a $100,000 investment in Prosperity Financial which Pappalardo converted for his personal use. In total, FINRA found that Pappalardo solicited C2C to at least 6 customers and purported to offer investors 12% interest returns on profits generated by the business. FINRA found that the investors did not actually own any portion of the real estate properties held by C2C but instead were to receive interest returns on profits from Pappalardo and the business. FINRA found that by engaging in the C2C private securities Pappalardo violated the FINRA rules.