Suitability

FINRA Sanctions WFG Investments $700,000 for Supervisory Failures Part I

February 6, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned brokerage firm WFG Investments, Inc. (WFG) alleging a host of supervisory failures from March 2007, through January 2014. FINRA alleged that WFG failed to commit the necessary time, attention, and resources to critical regulatory obligations in supervising registered representatives including: (1) failure to conduct appropriate due diligence on a private placement offering that was sold by a broker away from the firm; (2) failure to supervise the private securities transactions of one of its brokers that were executed through the representative’s investment advisory firm; (3) failure to maintain a supervisory system to ensure customer transactions were suitable; (4) failure to enforce its written supervisory procedures regarding the sale of alternative investments; (5) failure to supervise statements made by one broker on his weekly radio broadcast; and (6) failure to timely report customer complaints and update the Forms U4 and U5 of its brokers.

WFG has been a FINRA member since 1988, conducts a general securities business, and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. WFG currently has about 280 brokers operating out of 102 branch offices.

FINRA alleged that in 2007, a WFG broker by the initials “SGD” provided notice to the firm that he intended to sell a private placement offering FINRA called “ATMA” to his customers. ATMA was designed to offer an income stream to investors based revenues form automated teller machines (ATMs). In evaluating a selling agreement with SGD, FINRA alleged that WFG assigned its compliance officer known by the initials “TS” to conduct due diligence on ATMA. TS owned a 5% interest in ATMA and SGD was the 90% owner and the operator of ATMA, had no prior experience in structuring and offering private placement investments. FINRA found that the entity that was to provide the ATM machines to ATMA was engaged in fraudulent business practices and most of the ATMs were fictional. FINRA found that WFG declined to enter into a selling agreement with SGD, but permitted him SGD to sell interests in ATMA as private securities transactions.

Broker Spotlight: Shawn Burns of Salomon Whitney

February 5, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating a string of customer complaints against broker Shawn Burns (Burns) currently registered Salomon Whitney LLC (Salomon). According to The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) BrokerCheck system, the customer complaints primarily allege unauthorized trading, failure to execute, suitability, misrepresentation, fraud, churning, and breach of fiduciary duty.

Burns has been in the industry since 1999. In only 15 years Burns has been employed by 10 different firms. After leaving Westrock Advisors, Inc. in May 2007, Burns became registered with J.P Turner & Company, L.L.C. until June 2009. From June 2009, until July 2011, Burns was registered with First Midwest Securities, Inc. Thereafter, Burns was registered with Salomon until August 2012. Then Burns became associated with Cape Securities Inc. until April 2014 before again going back to Salomon where he is currently registered.

Burns has had 12 customer complaints filed against him during his career, one termination, and five judgments or liens. These statistics are troubling because so many customer complaints are rare. According to InvestmentNews, only about 12% of financial advisors have any type of disclosure event on their records. These disclosures do not necessarily have to include customer complaints but can include IRS tax liens, judgments, and even criminal matters. The number of brokers with multiple customer complaints is far smaller.

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.

Gana LLP Brings Claim on Behalf of its Client Against Fidelity Brokerage Services

February 2, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

Recently, the law office of Gana Weinstein LLP filed a claim (Complaint) on behalf of its client against Fidelity Brokerage Services (Fidelity) alleging that Fidelity was negligent when one of its registered representatives made an unsuitable recommendation to the client. The client purchased a stock in the company Lakeland Industries (Ticker Symbol: LAKE) believing that the stock was overvalued and initiated a short position to attempt to profit from the stock’s decline.

A short position allows an investor to sell an investment that the investor does not actually possess. Instead, the investor receives the cash proceeds from the sale and then is obligated, at a future date, to buy back the shares borrowed. If the value of the stock declines over time then the investor can buy back the stock at a cheaper price than what the investor sold the stock for, making a profit on the difference. Conversely, if the stock’s value increases the investor will have to buy back the stock at a higher value and would lose money.

From October 1, 2014, through October 10, 2014, the client sold short 10,100 shares of LAKE in his Fidelity account. Over the next few days the shares of LAKE increased causing margin calls in the client’s account. The client alleged that he had already added funds to his account to cover previous margin calls. The client wanted to hold the LAKE position and made it clear to Fidelity that he would continue to add funds to cover any margin calls to avoid having his LAKE position liquidated by Fidelity.

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.

Gana LLP Brings Claim on Behalf of Client Against Rockwell Global Capital

January 8, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP recently filed a complaint on behalf of an investor against Rockwell Global Capital, LLC (Rockwell), accusing the firm of making unsuitable recommendations and failing to properly supervise one of its financial advisers. In or around July 2013, the client alleged that he received a cold call from Rockwell financial adviser, Patrick Lofaro. A cold call is when someone solicits and individual who was not anticipating such an interaction. Cold calling is a technique used by a salesperson to contact individuals who have not previously expressed an interest in the products or services that are being offered.

It was alleged that Mr. Lofaro aggressively pursued the client’s investment related business and that Mr. Lofaro convinced him that he could build a diversified portfolio with minimal risk to the client. In reliance upon Mr. Lofaro’s assurances, the Claimant alleged that he opened an account with Rockwell in or around August 2013. Over a seven-month period, the Claimant invested a substantial sum with Rockwell which represented close to 50% of his liquid net worth. The complaint alleges that Mr. Lofaro, rather than create a suitable portfolio, implemented a high-leverage, excessive trading strategy that generated a high amount of commissions without providing any material benefit to the Claimant.

According to the complaint, over the course of just over a year, Mr. Lofaro executed nearly one-hundred-forty (140) trades into and out of thirty-five (35) different stocks, including seventeen (17) small caps, two (2) initial public offerings (IPO’s), eight (8) penny stocks, and fifteen (15) different stocks that were more than twice as volatile as the S&P 500. The complaint alleges that Mr. Lofaro created a portfolio laden with risk while providing no material benefit to the Claimant. Mr. Lofaro’s investment strategy ultimately cost the Claimant an estimated $837,131, while Mr. Lofaro received over $261,080 in commissions.

FINRA Sanctions Essex Securities for Failing to Supervise Mutual Fund Switching

December 4, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in an acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC), sanctioned brokerage firm Essex Securities, LLC (Essex Securities) alleging that from February 2010, through March 2011, Essex Securities through one of its brokers violated industry rules by engaging in a pattern of unsuitable mutual fund switching, a form of churning, in the accounts of seven customers. Further, FINRA found that Essex Securities violated FINRA’ supervisory rules by failing to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to prevent unsuitable mutual fund switching.

Essex has been a FINRA member broker-dealer since 1998, is headquartered in Topsfield, MA, and conducts a general securities business with approximately 50 brokers out of 26 branch offices.

FINRA alleged that an Essex Securities broker engaged in a pattern of unsuitable mutual fund switching in seven customer accounts by not having reasonable grounds for believing that such transactions were suitable for those customers due to the frequency of the transactions and the transaction costs incurred. Part of the suitability rule requires brokers to take into consideration the cost consequences of the transactions and ensure that there is a reasonable basis for the incurring of such costs. In this case, FINRA found that on at least 29 occasions, the broker recommended that customers sell mutual funds within only one to thirteen months after purchasing them. Essex Securities was found to have earned commissions of approximately $60,000 on these switch transactions and broker himself was paid approximately $54,000.

Massachusetts Fines LPL Financial Over Variable Annuity Sales Practices to Seniors

November 23, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

According to InvestmentNews, LPL Financial, LLC (LPL Financial) was recently fined by Massachusetts securities regulators fined for sales practices concerning variable annuities and agreed to reimburse senior citizens $541,000 for surrender charges they paid when they switched variable annuities. LPL Financial and its brokers have been on the defensive from securities regulators many times in recent years concerning a variety of alleged sales practice and supervisory short comings as shown below.

SEC Rejects Bids by Funds to List Nontransparent ETFs

November 19, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

In a rare move of true consumer protection, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) denied applications by fund managers BlackRock Inc. and Precidian Investments to offer nontransparent exchange-traded funds (ETFs) to investors by stating that such products were not in the public’s interest. The SEC stated that the proposals could inflict substantial costs on investors, disrupt orderly trading, and damage market confidence in trading of ETFs.

The fund managers have argued that opening up actively managed ETFs to full transparency would lead to front running, a strategy where other investors trade ahead to gain a benefit. As a result, the funds argue that their trading strategies are rendered obsolete by the market’s knowledge of them. Thus, the solution the industry devised was to deprive the investing public of disclosure of fund holdings.

However, the SEC said that daily transparency is necessary to keep the market prices of ETF shares at or close to the net asset value per share of the ETF. But as usual, the industry losses a battle but will eventually win the war. Others funds such as American Funds, T. Rowe Price Group Inc. and Eaton Vance Corp. all have applications pending for similar nontransparent ETFs where the SEC could rule on various alternative proposals. In addition, Precidian’s chief executive, Daniel J. McCabe, told InvestmentNews he believed the SEC’s objections can be worked though and that it will merely take longer to get approval because the funds are not standard.