Arbitration

Published on: July 4, 2013

Merrill Lynch Fined for Agent’s Unsuitable Trading

Securities fraud attorneys are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses as a result of doing business with Matthew Becker and Merrill Lynch. Consent orders against Becker and Merrill Lynch were recently announced by the New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulation. According to the orders, Matthew Becker was not properly supervised by Merrill Lynch and, as a result of this failure, he was able to engage in short-term trading that was unsuitable for his clients.

Merrill Lynch Fined for Agents Unsuitable Trading

According to stock fraud lawyers, the investigation began when one of Becker’s clients filed a complaint with the bureau. The complaint alleged unsuitable and excessive trading by Becker in the client’s account. Reportedly, it wasn’t until five months after the complaint was received by Merrill Lynch, in September 2010, that Merril Lynch required heightened supervision of Becker.

“After a thorough investigation and review by Bureau auditor William Masuck, we determined that there was a basis for the client’s complaint of excessive trading, especially with regard to mutual funds and structured products,” says Deputy Director of Enforcement Jeff Spill. “These kinds of investments are not suitable for frequent, short-term trading.”

Published on: June 27, 2013

CommonWealth REIT Shareholders Asked to Remove Directors; Investors Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Investment fraud lawyers are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses in the CommonWealth REIT. Investigations into the CommonWealth REIT began when allegations were made in a lawsuit filed by an investor in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts regarding false and misleading statements about the REIT’s prospects and financial standings that were allegedly made between January 10, 2012 and August 8, 2012. Investigations continue in light of a recent letter sent in June 2013 urging shareholders to vote for the removal of all of the REIT’s directors.

CommonWealth REIT Shareholders Asked to Remove Directors; Investors Could Recover Losses

The letter was sent by Corvex Management LP and Related Fund Management LLC. Corvex and Related are separately managed investment funds. Together, they own around 9.6 percent of all outstanding CommonWealth REIT common shares.

The letter from Corvex and Related states: “An outdated management structure, abysmal corporate governance, and mismanagement of operations have in our view been a significant driver in the 45 percent decline in CommonWealth REIT’s stock price over the last five years. We believe this continued value destruction is by design — the direct result of self-interested actions taken by CommonWealth’s current Board of Trustees and its external manager, REIT Management and Research LLC (RMR) which is owned by Barry Portnoy and his son, Adam.”

Published on: June 25, 2013

Customers of Wendy J. Worchester, TNP Securities Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Securities fraud attorneys are currently investigating claims on behalf of the customers of Wendy J. Worchester and TNP Securities LLC. According to a recent article in InvestmentNews, Tony Thompson’s non-traded REIT, or real estate investment trust, was suspended by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority for five months because of a failure to conduct independent and adequate due diligence.

Worchester was the co-chief compliance officer of TNP Securities LLC, a broker-dealer under Thompson’s control. Worchester and TNP Securities were suspended from working with a FINRA affiliated broker-dealer and Worchester was fined $15,000. According to FINRA, Worchester’s failure in due diligence was regarding three TNP Securities-sponsored private placement offerings.

According to stock fraud lawyers, TNP suffered almost $25.8 million in losses in 2009, resulting in negative $13.6 million net equity while launching the TNP Strategic Retail Trust Inc., a REIT. Allegedly, both of the note programs and two of the private placements offered by Thompson used new investor money to pay old investors. Both note programs are now in default.

Published on: June 20, 2013

JP Morgan Policy Allegedly Conflicted with Best Interest of Customers

by InvestorLawyers

Investment fraud lawyers are currently investigating claims on behalf of customers of JP Morgan Securities LLC. At issue is whether the customers received recommendations that were unsuitable or not in their best interest because of a JP Morgan policy that conflicted with brokers’ responsibilities to their customers.

JP Morgan Policy Allegedly Conflicted with Best Interest of Customers

According to a securities arbitration claim filed by a former JP Morgan broker, the firm allegedly “had a policy to only recommend in-house product to customers, irrespective of whether that product was the best choice for customers to meet their investment objectives.” Furthermore, the firm continued to discourage the selling of outside products by allegedly making it difficult for brokers to collect commissions and fees for those products. In addition, the claim alleges that the firm’s continuing insistence on the sales of proprietary mutual funds created a perpetual conflict between the firm’s policies and a broker’s responsibility to his or her clients.

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rules have established that firms have an obligation to fully disclose all the risks of a given investment when making recommendations, and those recommendations must be suitable for the individual investor receiving the recommendation given their age, investment objectives and risk tolerance. The alleged practices of JP Morgan would have discouraged and/or made it difficult for brokers to act in the best interest of their clients.

Published on: June 18, 2013

Investors Could Recover Losses for Unsuitable Recommendation of Floating-rate Bank Loan Funds

by InvestorLawyers

Securities fraud attorneys are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses as the result of an unsuitable recommendation of floating-rate bank loan funds. Earlier this month, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority announced that it ordered Banc of America and Wells Fargo to pay a fine and restitution for the improper and unsuitable recommendation and sale of floating-rate bank loan funds.

Investors Could Recover Losses for Unsuitable Recommendation of Floating-rate Bank Loan Funds

Wells Fargo Advisors LLC was ordered to pay a $1.25 million fine and restitution of approximately $2 million for losses sustained by 239 customers. As Banc of America’s successor, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith was ordered to pay a $900,000 fine and restitution of approximately $1.1 million for losses sustained by 214 customers.

Floating-rate bank loan funds can be illiquid and carry significant risks because they invest in loans to entities with below-investment-grade ratings. According to FINRA’s findings, Banc of America and Wells Fargo made recommendations of concentrated purchases of these investments to customers for whom the recommendation was unsuitable. Stock fraud lawyers say that most investors with conservative risk tolerances or who want to conserve principal should not have received a recommendation to invest in a floating-rate bank loan fund.

Published on: June 13, 2013

Customers of Blake B. Richards, Ameriprise, LPL Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Investment fraud lawyers are currently investigating claims on behalf of Ameriprise Financial and LPL Financial customers. Recently, the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission charged Blake B. Richards, a former LPL and Ameriprise Advisor Services advisor, with fraud. Allegedly, Richards misappropriated funds from a minimum of six individuals, amounting to around $2 million.

According to the SEC, at least two of Richards’ victims are elderly and most of the allegedly misappropriated funds were life insurance proceeds and/or retirement savings.

“Since at least 2008, on occasions when investors informed Richards that they had funds available to invest (such as from an IRA rollover or proceeds from a life insurance policy), Richards instructed the investors to write out checks to an entity called ‘Blake Richards Investments,’ a d/b/a entity, or another d/b/a used by Richards, ‘BMO Investments,'” the SEC’s complaint states. “Richards represented to the investors that he would invest their funds through his investment vehicle in life insurance, fixed income assets, variable annuities, or household-name stocks. Richards misappropriated much of the funds.”

Published on: June 11, 2013

ProEquities Investors Could Recover Losses for Inappropriate Sale of Non-traded REITs

by InvestorLawyers

Securities fraud attorneys are currently investigating claims on behalf of customers of ProEquities Inc. Allegedly, ProEquities has engaged in the inappropriate sale of speculative and illiquid investments, including non-traded REITs.

ProEquities Investors Could Recover Losses for Inappropriate Sale of Non-traded REITs

In one recent claim, a couple from Minnesota read an ad in the newspaper that reportedly contained the words “Retirement” and “Safe.” After reading this ad, they attended a seminar, during which an advisor for ProEquities reportedly used the catchphrases “no stock market risk” and “retirement income – net of fees and expenses.” He allegedly emphasized investments that supposedly avoided exposure to the stock market and risk.

Following the seminar, stock fraud lawyers say the couple followed the advice of the advisor. They invested the majority of their savings according to the ProEquities advisor’s ongoing advice. The investments they made turned out to be highly speculative and illiquid non-traded REITs. ProEquities sold the couple the following products: Behringer Harvard Multifamily REIT I, Behringer Harvard REIT I, ATEL Growth Capital Fund III and LEAF Equipment Leasing Income Fund III.

Published on: June 4, 2013

Non-traded REITs: Five Firms to Pay $7 Million in Massachusetts Settlement

by InvestorLawyers

On May 22, 2013, secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Galvin announced settlements with five major independent broker-dealers. According to the settlements, Ameriprise Financial Services Inc. will pay $2.6 million in restitution to investors and a $400,000 fine, Commonwealth Financial Network will pay restitution of $2.1 million and a fine of $300,000, Royal Alliance Associates Inc. will pay restitution of $59,000 and a fine of $25,000, Securities America Inc. will pay restitution of $778,000 and a fine of $150,000 and Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp. will pay restitution of $504,000 and a fine of $100,000. Securities fraud attorneys are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who purchased Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) from these or any other independent broker-dealers.

Non-traded REITs: Five Firms to Pay $7 Million in Massachusetts Settlement

According to a statement made by Mr. Galvin, “Our investigation into the sales of REITs, triggered by investor complaints, showed a pattern of impropriety on the sales of these popular but risky investments on the part of independent brokerage firms where supervision has historically been difficult to monitor.”

According to stock fraud lawyers, this settlement follows the February decision in which LPL Financial LLC was required to pay restitution to investors of $2 million and fines totaling $500,000 regarding non-traded REIT sales.

Published on: May 28, 2013

American Capital Agency, American Capital Mortgage REIT Investors Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Investment fraud lawyers are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses in two mortgage REITs, American Capital Agency and American Capital Mortgage, following the announcement of 2013 first-quarter results. For the first quarter of 2013, American Capital Mortgage suffered losses of $0.56 per share and American Capital Agency suffered losses of $1.57 per share.

American Capital Agency, American Capital Mortgage REIT Investors Could Recover Losses

Reportedly, these losses are a result of increasing interest rates combined with a drop in mortgage-backed securities values and the secondary offering’s failure to foresee these changes. However, mortgage REITs, or real estate investment trusts, are not suitable for all investors. Prior to recommending an investment to a client, brokers and firms are required to perform the necessary due diligence to establish whether the investment is suitable for the client, given their age, investment objectives and risk tolerance.

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rules have established that firms have an obligation to fully disclose all the risks of a given investment when making recommendations. Furthermore, securities arbitration lawyers say brokerage firms must, before approving an investment’s sale to a customer, conduct a reasonable investigation of the securities and issuer.

Published on: May 23, 2013

VSR Financial Services Customers Could Recover Losses

by InvestorLawyers

Investment fraud lawyers are currently investigating claims on behalf of investors who suffered significant losses as a result of doing business with VSR Financial Services and/or Michael David Shaw, a financial advisor. Allegedly, Shaw and VSR Financial Services may have engaged in misconduct in connection with the sales of REITs, alternative investments, hedge funds and private placements.

Title of the Post Goes Here

Reportedly, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority accepted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent on May 15, 2013 from VSR Financial Services. In the letter, the firm agreed to pay a fine of $550,000 which will settle allegations that the firm failed to adequately supervise the sales of alternative investments to customers. In particular, the firm allegedly failed to supervise the concentration of these investments in customer portfolios.

In addition, securities arbitration lawyers say that in October 2011, a trader calling himself Michael Daniel Shaw submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent. In this letter he consented to the findings that he had recommended the sale of private placements, which were high-risk, to customers for whom he did not have a reasonable basis to believe they were suitable transactions. Furthermore, Shaw allegedly made material omissions or misrepresentations regarding the purchase or sales of the private placements.