Arbitration

Published on: January 31, 2013

Losses Resulting from Unsuitable Recommendation of ETFs Could be Recoverable

Investment fraud lawyers are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who have suffered significant losses in exchange traded funds, or ETFs. Exchange traded funds are similar to stocks in that they are investment funds traded on stock exchanges. These types of investments hold stocks, bonds, commodities or other assets. Throughout the trading day, an ETF trades close to its net asset value and most of these investments track a stock or bond index.

Losses Resulting from Unsuitable Recommendation of ETFs Could be Recoverable

Securities arbitration lawyers say that because of the low-cost, stock-like features and tax efficiency, ETFs are attractive to many investors. However, there are risks associated with ETFs that may make them unsuitable for some investors. In 2012, many ETFs suffered declines that resulted in investor losses. According to investment fraud lawyers, investors suffered losses anywhere from 22-90 percent in exchange traded funds.

The following is a list of ETFs that declined in 2012:

Published on: January 24, 2013

UBS Willow Fund Declines 80%, Investors Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Securities fraud attorneys are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses in the UBS Willow Fund, sold by UBS Financial Services. Formed in 2000, the UBS Willow Fund is a private hedge fund. Reportedly, investors were notified in October 2012 that the Willow Fund had sustained substantial losses and would be liquidated.

Allegedly, UBS may have offered and sold the UBS Willow fund to investors — particularly customers with low risk tolerance seeking stable income, such as retirees — while marketing it as a safe, reliable investment. However, the fund has suffered a decline of around 80 percent. Investigations are also underway to determine if UBS Financial Services adequately disclosed or misrepresented the material risks of this investment to clients.

In some cases, securities fraud attorneys say that investors’ portfolios may have been over-concentrated in the UBS Willow Fund. If so, these portfolios may have been mismanaged, given that risk management strategies were available that would have offered investors protection for the value of their portfolio.

Published on: January 22, 2013

CommonWealth REIT Investors Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Investment fraud lawyers are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses in CommonWealth REIT. Allegedly, between January 10, 2012, and August 8, 2012, CommonWealth issued false and misleading statements regarding its financial standing and prospects which, if proved to be true, would be a violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

CommonWealth REIT Investors Could Recover Losses

The CommonWealth real estate investment trust primarily owns and operates real estate, such as industrial buildings, office buildings and leased industrial land. Allegations currently being investigated by securities arbitration lawyers are that CommonWealth failed to disclose certain facts, including the fact that leased office spaces had fallen below expectations, existing tenants were receiving concessions which were eroding CommonWealth’s income and, as a result, CommonWealth’s positive statements about its occupancy rate, dividend payout and leverage ratio were not reasonably founded.

An announcement on August 8, 2012, stated that CommonWealth would likely be reducing its dividend payment. Among the reasons cited for this reduction were that its available cash for distribution payout ratio had increased and its occupancy rate had decreased. Following this announcement, the per share price of CommonWealth fell $1.57, or 9 percent, closing at $16.48 that day. Investment fraud lawyers say that by October 26, 2012, shares were trading at $13.58, a 52-week low. Furthermore, while CommonWealth REIT’s annual revenue increased from 2008 to 2011, its net income fell in that same period from $244.65 million to $109.98 million, a decline of $134.67 million.

Published on: January 17, 2013

Full-service Brokerage Customers Who Were Overconcentrated in Citigroup Stock Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

In light of Citigroup Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 07 Civ. 9901, a settled class action suit against Citigroup, Citigroup shareholders are encouraged to contact an investment fraud lawyer in order to explore all their legal rights and options for recovering substantial losses that resulted from holding a concentrated position in the stock. Investors with full-service brokerage firms, excluding Citigroup and its related parties, may be able to recover their losses through Financial Industry Regulatory Authority securities arbitration.

Full-service Brokerage Customers Who Were Overconcentrated in Citigroup Stock Could Recover Losses

Many claims related to the overconcentration in Citigroup stock in full-service brokerage accounts focus on the fact that many of these portfolios were mismanaged, given that risk management strategies were available that would have offered investors protection for the value of their portfolio. Securities arbitration lawyers say that protective puts and collars, stop loss and limit orders, “zero cost” collars and other “hedge” strategies are risk management strategies that could have been used to protect clients’ portfolios.

Protective puts, limit orders and stop loss orders are a way to give an account an exit strategy and downside protection in the event that a stock declines in value. A “zero cost” collar is a hedging strategy that creates a range of value, allowing the portfolio to maintain its value, irrespective of the direction and fluctuation of the price of the underlying stock. In many cases, investment fraud lawyers say that investors’ concentrated positions were directly exposed to fluctuations in the securities markets because of a failure of full-service brokerage firms to utilize these risk management strategies.

Published on: January 15, 2013

Behringer Harvard REIT I Share Price Cut Again

by InvestorLawyers

On December 20, 2012, Behringer Harvard REIT I officials stated that its per share price valuation was decreasing from $4.64 per share to $4.01 per share. Securities fraud attorneys say this last devaluation represents a significant decline from its original offering price. Behringer Harvard REIT I has assets amounting to $4.2 billion. Allegedly, the devaluation is a result of funding leasing and operating costs with the use of assets, distribution payments and reductions in the value of its real estate assets and debt.

Behringer Harvard REIT I Share Price Cut Again

Non-traded REITs, such as Behringer Harvard REIT I, carry a relatively high dividend or high interest, making them attractive to investors. In many cases, stock fraud lawyers say brokers may have represented Behringer Harvard REIT I as a safe, conservative investment. However, in reality, non-traded REITs are inherently risky and illiquid. Some of the factors that make REITs risky investments are that distributions are not guaranteed, valuation complexities and illiquidity can be created if there is a deficiency of a public trading market, redeeming the investment early is often expensive and restrictive and non-traded REITs’ valuation can be affected by many factors, including the trust’s balance sheet strength, cost of capital, overhead expenses and the portfolio of assets owned.

As a public non-traded REIT, Behringer Harvard REIT I may have carried a high commission which may have motivated brokers to make the recommendation to investors despite the investment’s unsuitability. The commission on a non-traded REIT is often as high as 15 percent. Securities fraud attorneys say that if Behringer Harvard REIT was misrepresented by their brokers as safe, clients may be able to recover losses through securities arbitration. Furthermore, some brokers allegedly put a substantial amount of some clients’ assets in the REIT, which resulted in an over-concentration that was unsuitable for investors.

Published on: January 10, 2013

Investor Recovers $1.38 Million from Morgan Keegan

by InvestorLawyers

On December 17, a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel reportedly sided with an investor against Morgan Keegan & Co. Inc. Stock fraud lawyers say the FINRA arbitration panel awarded the investor $1.38 million in settling his complaint related to Morgan Keen proprietary bond funds called the Intermediate Fund. Of the award, $851,000 was for compensatory damages and $400,000 was for other compensation and legal fees.

Investor Recovers $1.38 Million from Morgan Keegan

The claim, which originally requested $4.3 million in relief, was filed in 2010 by Lawrence B. Dale, an investor in the Intermediate Fund. The award stated that Morgan Keegan allegedly “represented to the claimants that the (bond fund) was a safe and conservative investment.” Further allegations by Dale were that the Intermediate Fund “did not match Morgan Keegan’s misrepresentations, failed to disclose material information, misrepresented values, and invested in structured finance and asset-backed securities” that were unsuitable for Dale. The firm also allegedly failed to adequately supervise its employees, according to Dale.

Securities arbitration lawyers say that Morgan Keegan and Regions Financial have been facing many problems because of the Intermediate Fund and its blowup during the financial crisis. This fund was one of a group that saw a significant decline in net asset value in 2007 and 2008, reportedly between 60 and 80 percent. Furthermore, the firm was later charged by regulators with overstating the value of the funds’ mortgage-backed securities. The firm agreed to pay a fine to regulators amounting to $200 million in 2011. In addition, a civil complaint was filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission against the funds’ former board members in December. According to this complaint, the board members allegedly failed to properly oversee the managers of the fund.

Published on: January 10, 2013

Inland American REIT Share Price Cut Again

by InvestorLawyers

On December 19, 2012, Inland American Real Estate Trust Inc. stated that its per share price valuation was decreasing from $7.22 per share to $6.93 per share. Securities fraud attorneys say this last devaluation represents a 30 percent decrease from its original price of $10 per share. With assets amounting to $12.2 billion, Inland American REIT is the largest REIT that has seen a decline in valuation recently. Allegedly, the devaluation is a result of increased capitalization rates.

Inland American REIT Share Price Cut Again

Non-traded REITs such as Inland American carry a relatively high dividend or high interest, making them attractive to investors. And in many cases, stock fraud lawyers say brokers may have represented Inland American REIT as a safe, conservative investment. However, in reality, non-traded REITs are inherently risky and illiquid. Some of the factors that make REITs risky investments are that distributions are not guaranteed, and shares can be very difficult to sell because there is no public trading market. Non-traded REITs’ valuation can be affected by many factors, including the trust’s balance sheet strength, cost of capital, overhead expenses and the portfolio of assets owned.

Public non-traded REITs often carry high commissions that can motivate brokers to recommend them to investors despite the investment’s unsuitability. The commission on a non-traded REIT is often as high as 15 percent. Securities fraud attorneys say that if Inland American REIT was misrepresented by their brokers as safe, clients may be able to recover losses through securities arbitration. Furthermore, some brokers allegedly put a substantial amount of some clients’ assets in the REIT which resulted in an over-concentration that was unsuitable for investors.

Published on: January 8, 2013

Longwei Petroleum Under Investigation for Allegedly Misleading Investors with False Financials

by InvestorLawyers

Investment lawyers are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors in Longwei Petroleum Investment Holding Ltd. As a wholesale petroleum products distributor, Longwei Petroleum deals in storage, transportation, and sales of finished petroleum products in the People’s Republic of China.

Longwei Petroleum Under Investigation for Allegedly Misleading Investors with False Financials

In the latter part of December, Longwei Petroleum reported its sales revenue for October and November 2012. The company reported an increase in sales volume of 26.1% and an increase in product revenue of 35%, year-over year. However, in January, a report by GEOInvesting.com had a disastrous effect on the company’s share price because of the report’s allegations that the company had mislead investors with false financials. The report alleged Longwei Petroleum had exaggerated its November 2012 sales for its Gujiao and Taiyuan facilities. Allegations in the report also stated that the company failed to disclose a Tourism business investment amounting to $32 million. Allegedly, this investment was made by Shanxi Zhonghe Energy Conversion Co. Ltd., a Longwei Petroleum subsidiary.

On January 3, 2013, following the report, Longwei Petroleum’s shares plummeted 72%, or $1.68 per share, to only $0.62 per share during intraday trading. Securities arbitration lawyers say many investors suffered losses as a result of such a significant decline in per share value.

Published on: January 2, 2013

Investor Sues Citigroup for $400 Million Lost in CSO Fund

by InvestorLawyers

An investor recently commenced legal action attempting to recover $400 million lost in Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC’s Corporate Special Opportunities Fund. The investor, David Beach, is suing Citigroup, accusing the bank of misleading investors about debt trading in ProSiebenSat. 1 Media AG, (PSM). ProSiebenSat. 1 is a German firm and one of Europe’s biggest broadcasters.

Investor Sues Citigroup for $400 million Lost in CSO Fund

According to the complaint, which was filed in Manhattan federal court, John Picket, the CSO’s founder, leveraged the assets of the fund in order to purchase debt in the German firm’s offering worth around 558 million Euros, or $730 million. Allegedly, following Pickett’s actions, the CSO fund suffered significant losses. Reportedly, in December 2007, Pickett resigned.

Beach’s investment fraud lawyers stated in the complaint that, “investors were not informed that his departure was the result of his breaches of the fund’s investment restrictions.” Citigroup spokeswoman Danielle Romero-Apsilos declined to comment in relation to the suit.

Published on: January 2, 2013

Cole Credit Property Trust II, Dividend Capital Total Realty Named in Complaints Against LPL Financial

by InvestorLawyers

Securities fraud attorneys continue to investigate claims on behalf of investors who suffered losses in nontraded real estate investment trusts purchased from LPL Financial between 2006 and 2009. The recent announcement that LPL is being sued by the State of Massachusetts over sales practices related to nontraded REITs has helped inform investors about the issues concerning the sales of these risky, illiquid products.

Cole Credit Property Trust II and Dividend Capital Total Realty Named in Complaints Against LPL Financial

Cole Credit Property Trust II and Dividend Capital Total Realty were named in the list of complaints filed by investors, in addition to REIT giant Inland American Real Estate Trust. Shares of these nontraded REITs were purchased through LPL-affiliated financial advisors. Currently, there are 13,170 financial advisors who are LPL-affiliated advisors. Stock fraud lawyers say Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II, Cole Credit Property III, 1031 Exchange and W.P. Carey Corporate Property Associates 17 were also named.

LPL compliance documents state that the broker-dealer “cannot make exceptions to prospectus suitability requirements or the regulatory imposed limit of 10 percent of net worth in public managed futures.” However, the state regulator alleges that advisors affiliated with LPL “frequently made transactions in violation of product prospectus and Massachusetts requirements.” In addition, the complaint alleges that a LPL supervision employee was “completely unaware of Massachusetts’ requirements concerning the sale of non-traded REITs” for a minimum of two years.