securities fraud

Broker Investigation: Churning Claims Against Broker Kerry Raheb (a/k/a Patrick Raheb)

January 22, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities fraud lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) against broker Kerry Raheb (a/k/a Patrick Raheb) (Raheb). According to BrokerCheck records there are at least 5 customer complaints, two judgments or liens, and one criminal matter involving Raheb. The customer complaints against Raheb allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, misrepresentations, negligence, and churning (excessive trading) among other claims. The most recent customer complaint filed in December 2015 alleged unsuitable investments resulting in losses of $199,001. The claim is still pending. In April 2014, another client filed a complaint alleging unauthorized trading claiming damages of $300,000. The broker has denied the allegations in the complaint and the claim is still pending.

In addition, Raheb has two judgements. One tax lien filed in January 2014 for $64,518 and one civil judgement for $12,024 recorded in February 2013. Substantial judgements and liens on a broker’s record can reveal a financial incentive for the broker to recommend high commission products or services. A broker’s inability to handle their personal finances has also been found to be relevant in helping investors determine if they should allow the broker to handle their finances.

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.

Broker Investigation: Churning Claims Against Aegis Broker Steven Luftschein

January 22, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities fraud lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) against broker Steven Luftschein (Luftschein). According to BrokerCheck records there are at least 12 customer complaints against Luftschein. The customer complaints against Luftschein allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, misrepresentations, negligence, and churning (excessive trading) among other claims. The most recent customer complaint filed in July 2015 alleged unsuitable investments, failure to supervise, unauthorized trading, breach of fiduciary duty, and misrepresentations from March 2010 until September 2011. The case is still pending.

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.

The number of customer complaints against Luftschein is high relative to his peers. According to InvestmentNews, only about 12% of financial advisors have any type of disclosure event on their records. Brokers must publicly disclose certain types of reportable events on their CRD including but not limited to customer complaints. In addition to disclosing client disputes brokers must divulge IRS tax liens, judgments, and criminal matters. However, FINRA’s records are not always complete according to a Wall Street Journal story that checked with 26 state regulators and found that at least 38,400 brokers had regulatory or financial red flags such as a personal bankruptcy that showed up in state records but not on BrokerCheck. More disturbing is the fact that 19,000 out of those 38,400 brokers had spotless BrokerCheck records.

Broker Spotlight: Customer Complaints Against UBS Broker Michael Blueweiss

January 20, 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 Michael Blueweiss (Blueweiss). According to BrokerCheck records there are at least 6 customer complaints against Blueweiss. The most recent customer complaint against Blueweiss filed in November 2014 alleges that Blueweiss concentrated the client in structured products, annuities failed to disclose surrender penalities, and churning. Another customer complaint filed in February 2011 alleged that unsuitable investments in UBS reversed convertibles linked to the common stock of Lehman Brothers.

Brokers have a responsibility treat investors fairly which includes obligations such as making only suitable investments for the client. In order to make a suitable recommendation the broker must meet certain requirements. First, there must be reasonable basis for the recommendation the product or security based upon the broker’s investigation and due diligence into the investment’s properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, and other relevant factors. Second, the broker then must match the investment as being appropriate for the customer’s specific investment needs and objectives such as the client’s retirement status, long or short term goals, age, disability, income needs, or any other relevant factor.

The number of customer complaints against Blueweiss is high relative to his peers. According to InvestmentNews, only about 12% of financial advisors have any type of disclosure event on their records. Brokers must publicly disclose certain types of reportable events on their CRD including but not limited to customer complaints. In addition to disclosing client disputes brokers must divulge IRS tax liens, judgments, and criminal matters. However, FINRA’s records are not always complete according to a Wall Street Journal story that checked with 26 state regulators and found that at least 38,400 brokers had regulatory or financial red flags such as a personal bankruptcy that showed up in state records but not on BrokerCheck. More disturbing is the fact that 19,000 out of those 38,400 brokers had spotless BrokerCheck records.

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.

SEC Files Complaint Against Former Edward Jones Broker Bernard Parker For Stealing Client Funds

December 31, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The investment lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints against broker Bernard Parker (Parker). The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced fraud charges against Parker, a former broker with Edward Jones through his DBA Parker Financial Services located in Indiana, Pennsylvania. Parker has been accused of raising at least $1.2 million of investor money that was in reality used to remodel his house and pay other bills among other uses.

The SEC alleged that Parker raised more than $1.2 million from his brokerage customers and others who Parker told were purchasing real estate tax lien certificates that would earn returns of 6-9% annually. Specifically, Parker told prospective investors that Parker Financial Services would use funds to purchase tax liens placed by municipalities on properties primarily in Florida, Arizona, and Colorado. However, the SEC found that Parker pooled the money he raised into several bank accounts and routinely deposited only a portion of the money into a bank account and took the remainder in cash for himself.

The SEC alleged that Parker only used a small amount of investor funds to purchase tax liens and instead used their money to remodel his home, make car payments, and pay bills for his father-in-law. For instance, according to the SEC Parker withdrew more than $650,000 in investor funds in cash from teller transactions, ATM withdrawals, and checks. Parker additionally spent approximately $197,000 of investor money in other transactions, $150,000 through personal checks, and $169,000 for online bill payments. In total Parker made approximately $188,000 in interest payments to earlier investors in an effort to keep his investment scheme from being discovered.

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.