Español Inner

Articles Posted in FINRA Arbitration

Published on:

Money MazeAs recently reported, former broker Kyusun Kim (a/k/a Kyu Sun Kim, a/k/a Kenny Kim) (CRD# 2864085) has consented to a “sanction and to the entry of findings [by FINRA] that he made unsuitable recommendations to numerous senior customers, who were retiring or had retired that they concentrate their retirement assets and liquid net worth in speculative and illiquid securities.”  Pursuant to a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver & Consent (AWC) accepted by FINRA on June 26, 2018 — and under which Mr. Kim neither admitted nor denied FINRA’s findings — the former financial advisor voluntarily consented to a “bar from association with any FINRA member in any and all capacities.”

Publicly available information via FINRA BrokerCheck indicates that Mr. Kim first entered the securities industry in 1997, and most recently was affiliated with Independent Financial Group, LLC (CRD# 7717) from 2006 – 2016 and, thereafter, Sandlapper Securities, LLC (CRD# 137906) from March 2016 – April 2017.  Furthermore, BrokerCheck indicates that Mr. Kim has been the subject of or otherwise involved in 23 customer disputes.  With regard to these customer disputes, 13 of these complaints resulted in settlements, while 9 complaints remain pending (1 complaint was denied in October 2010).  As to the pending customer complaints, the allegations raised center on Mr. Kim’s purported “… breach of fiduciary duty, breach of oral and written contract, violation of state and federal securities laws, violation of FINRA rules of fair practice … [and] unsuitable investments.”

As encapsulated within the June 26, 2018 AWC, it has been alleged that Mr. Kim “falsely inflated the net worth figures of several customers on their new account forms and other documents so that they appeared eligible to purchase certain speculative investments, in violation of NASD Rules 3110 and 2110 and FINRA Rules 4511 and 2010.”  Moreover, as set forth in the AWC, Mr. Kim allegedly made unsuitable investment recommendations to senior customers in violation of NASD Rules 2310 and 2110, as well as FINRA Rules 2111 and 2010.

Published on:

woodbridge mortgage fundsInvestors in Woodbridge upon the recommendation of former financial advisor Joel Vincent Flaningan (“Flaningan”) (CRD# 5664958) may be able to recover their losses in FINRA arbitration.  According to FINRA BrokerCheck, Mr. Flaningan was discharged from employment with NYLife Securities LLC (“NYLife”) (CRD# 5167) on or about May 10, 2018, in connection with “allegations he was involved in the solicitation of New York Life (“NYL”) clients to invest in an unregistered entity named Woodbridge Mortgage Investment Fund… Mr. Flaningan failed to disclose any involvement with Woodbridge to NYL.”  Furthermore, publicly available information via BrokerCheck indicates that Mr. Flaningan is currently the subject of one customer dispute concerning allegations that he purportedly failed to disclose the material risks “associated with an unregistered investment in Woodbridge… .”

According to BrokerCheck, NYLife has disavowed any prior knowledge of Mr. Flaningan’s business activity conducted away from the firm in selling purportedly non-approved Woodbridge investments.  However, sales of unregistered securities by a financial advisor who engages in such “selling away” activity while still affiliated with his or her brokerage firm may result in the broker-dealer (such as NYLife) being held vicariously liable for the negligence and/or misconduct of its registered representative.

As recently reported, the Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC (“Woodbridge”) of Sherman Oaks, CA, and certain of its affiliated entities, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on December 4, 2017 (U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware – Case No. 17-12560-KJC).  The SEC has alleged that Woodbridge, through its owner and former CEO, Mr. Robert Shapiro, purportedly utilized “more than 275 Limited Liability Companies to conduct a massive Ponzi scheme raising more than $1.22 billion from over 8,400 unsuspecting investors nationwide through fraudulent unregistered securities offerings.”

Published on:

Money in WastebasketOn June 19, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a Complaint against various individuals and entities — including former financial advisor John Charles Piccarreto, Jr. (CRD# 6276418) of San Antonio, TX — in furtherance of the SEC’s efforts to “stop an ongoing fraudulent scheme in which the Defendants have raised more than $102 million from at least 637 investors across the United States since 2011.”  As alleged by the SEC, Defendants Perry Santillo and Christopher Parris of Rochester, NY purportedly orchestrated a fraudulent Ponzi-like scheme predicated upon first buying or taking over books of business from retiring investment professionals from around the country.

According to the Complaint, after acquiring new investors and assets, Messrs. Santillo and Parris (each formerly registered with FINRA) would coordinate their sales efforts with Defendants, including John Piccarreto, Jr., in order to allegedly persuade victims into withdrawing savings from traditional investments, in order to transfer the capital into issuers controlled by Messrs. Santillo, Parris, or certain of their associates.  The SEC has alleged that the Defendants would “falsely claim that their investors’ money [would] be used to operate businesses in fields such as financial services, insurance, real estate development, and medical laboratories.”  In actuality, however, the SEC has alleged that Defendants would transfer funds received into “multiple accounts held in the names of different entities” controlled by Defendants.  While some of the funds were purportedly used to repay investors in typical Ponzi-fashion, the SEC has alleged that the bulk of the monies were misappropriated by the Defendants.

With regard to Mr. Piccarreto, the SEC has alleged that, in one instance, he met with an elderly investor from Austin, TX in February 2015.  As alleged, Mr. Piccarreto convinced the 80 year old investor, who suffered from dementia, into putting $250,000 into an entity controlled by Defendants: Percipience.  Mr. Piccarreto later emailed the investor’s daughter, in response to her concerns with the Percipience investment, that “I know this is scary for you and you are just looking out for dad but I promise you I will not let anything happen to any of the money.”  In total, the SEC has alleged that Mr. Piccarreto misappropriated approximately $1.3 million in investor money.

Published on:

Piggy Bank in a CageInvestors who suffered losses due to the alleged misconduct of Rockland County financial advisor Hector A. May (CRD# 323779) may be able to recover their losses in arbitration before FINRA.  A resident of Orangeburg, NY, Mr. May was most recently affiliated with the independent broker-dealer Securities America, Inc. (CRD# 10205) from 1998 until March 2018.  As recently reported, on June 6, 2018, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York implemented an asset freeze pursuant to a Restraining Order against Mr. May and his wife, Sonia May, with their consent.  According to publicly available information through FINRA, the Justice Department is “conducting an official criminal investigation of a suspected felony.”

Among the assets frozen under the terms of the government’s Restraining Order are those assets held by Executive Compensation Planners Inc. (“ECP Inc.”), the Registered Investment Advisory (“RIA”) firm owned and controlled by Hector May.  In addition to freezing ECP Inc. assets, the government is also restraining numerous bank and brokerage accounts owned by the Mays, as well as monthly proceeds payable to Hector May through an Equitable Life Pension payment and social security.  Finally, the government has frozen Mays’ real assets, including a house in Orangeburg, NY, a condominium in Vernon Township, NJ, as well as “all jewelry, fur products, antiques, and silver owned by Hector May or Sonia May.”

According to FINRA BrokerCheck, Mr. May was discharged from his employment with Securities America due to his alleged “misappropriation of client assets.”  Acting through his RIA, Mr. May’s business as a financial advisor was supposedly predicated on selling certain wrap fee advisory programs through Securities America.

Published on:

woodbridge mortgage fundsIf you invested in Woodbridge Units or Notes, as further defined below — based upon a recommendation by financial advisor Frank Capuano — you may be able to recover your losses through securities arbitration before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”).  Publicly available information through FINRA BrokerCheck indicates that Frank Capuano was formerly affiliated with broker-dealer Royal Alliance Associates, Inc. (“Royal Alliance”) (CRD# 23131) in Mount Holyoke, MA, from 1989 – July 2015.

Pursuant to an Acceptance, Waiver & Consent (AWC) entered into by Mr. Capuano and FINRA on or about May 2, 2016, the former Royal Alliance stock broker, without admitting or denying any wrongdoing, consented to a one year industry suspension.  In connection with the AWC, FINRA alleged that Mr. Capuano:

“engaged in undisclosed and unapproved private securities transactions.  The findings stated that he offered and sold approximately $1.1 million in notes to nine of his firm’s customers … The findings also stated that he received over $34,000 in commissions in connection with these transactions.  The findings further stated that he did not seek or obtain approval from his firm before participating in these private securities transactions, nor did he disclose them to his firm.” (emphasis added)

Published on:

Piggy Bank in a CageAs recently reported, third-party real estate investment firm MacKenzie Realty Capital (“MacKenzie”) launched an unsolicited tender offer to purchase up to 1 million shares of Carter Validus Mission Critical REIT, Inc. (“Carter Validus”) shares for $3.36 per share.  The tender offer is set to expire on June 25, 2018.  While the Carter Validus Board has recommended that shareholders reject the offer, the non-traded REIT’s share repurchase program is already fully subscribed for 2018.  Further compounding the problem, Carter Validus recently reported that its largest tenant by revenue — Bay Area Regional Medical Center, LLC in Webster, TX — has declared bankruptcy.  Currently, investors seeking immediate liquidity on their Carter Validus investment have limited options at their disposal.

Headquartered in Tampa, Florida, Carter Validus is a publicly registered, non-traded REIT that is focused on investing in net leased data centers and healthcare properties.  As recently reported, Carter Validus’ portfolio consists of 66 properties, including 3 data centers and 63 healthcare properties.  The REIT’s offering, declared effective by the SEC in December 2010, closed in June 2014 after raising approximately $1.7 billion in investor equity.

As a publicly registered non-traded REIT, Carter Validus was permitted to sell securities to the investing public at large, including numerous unsophisticated retail investors who bought shares through the IPO upon the recommendation of a broker or financial advisor.  Many ordinary investors may be unaware of the high up-front commissions (typically between 7-10% of the initial investment) associated with non-traded REITs like Carter Validus.  Further, some investors may have been improperly steered into Carter Validus, without first being fully informed of the investment’s complex nature and inherent risks.

Published on:

Money in WastebasketInvestors in Cole Credit Property Trust IV, Inc. (“Cole Credit IV”) appear to have incurred substantial principal losses, based on the pricing of a recent tender offer.  Recently, third party real estate investment firm MacKenzie Realty Capital, LP (“MacKenzie”) initiated a tender offer to purchase shares of Cole Credit IV at a price of $6.01/share.  Therefore, investors who invested in Cole Credit IV through the offering at $10/share will incur substantial losses on their initial investment of approximately 40% (exclusive of commissions paid and distributions received to date).

Cole Credit IV’s real estate portfolio is geographically diverse, and is focused on investments in “income-producing, necessity single-tenant retail properties and anchored shopping centers subject to long-term net lease,” as stated on the company’s website.  As a publicly registered non-traded REIT, Cole Credit IV was permitted to sell securities to the investing public at large, including numerous unsophisticated retail investors who bought shares through the IPO upon the recommendation of a broker or money manager.  Cole Credit terminated its offering on April 4, 2014.

Non-traded REITs pose many risks that are often not readily apparent to retail investors, or adequately explained by the financial advisors and stockbrokers who recommend these complex investments.  One significant risk associated with non-traded REITs has to do with their high up-front commissions, typically between 7-10%.  In addition to high commissions, non-traded REITs like Cole Credit IV generally charge investors for certain due diligence and administrative fees, ranging anywhere from 1-3%.

Published on:

Piggy Bank in a CageInvestors in Phillips Edison Grocery Center REIT II (“Phillips Edison II”) were recently solicited by third-party real estate investment management firm MacKenzie Realty Capital, Inc. (“MacKenzie”) in relation to a mini tender offer to purchase Phillips Edison II shares at $14.89 per share.  Investors who purchased Phillips Edison II shares through the initial offering acquired their shares at $25 per share (and at $23.75 per share for shares subsequently acquired through the dividend reinvestment program).  Accordingly, investors seeking immediate liquidity who elect to participate in the MacKenzie tender offer will incur substantial losses of approximately 40% on their initial investment (excluding commissions and fees, as well any dividend income received to date).

Phillips Edison II was incorporated in June 2013 and is a publicly registered, non-traded REIT.  As set forth in its prospectus, Phillips Edison II was “formed to leverage the expertise of our sponsors… and capitalize on the market opportunity to acquire and manage grocery-anchored neighborhood and community shopping centers located in strong demographic markets throughout the United States.”  As a publicly registered non-traded REIT, Phillips Edison II was permitted to sell securities to the investing public at large, and as such, the non-traded REIT was marketed nationwide to numerous unsophisticated retail investors.  In certain instances, some investors were not fully informed by their financial advisor as to the complex nature and risks associated with non-traded REITs.

Non-traded REITs pose many risks that are often not readily apparent to retail investors, or adequately explained by the financial advisors and stockbrokers who recommend these complex investments.  To begin, one significant risk associated with non-traded REITs has to do with their high up-front commissions, typically between 7-10%; in the case of Phillips Edison II, its prospectus indicates that investors were charged a “selling commission” of 7%.  In addition to high commissions, non-traded REITs like Phillips Edison II generally charge investors for certain due diligence and administrative fees, ranging anywhere from 1-3%; as set forth in its prospectus, Phillips Edison II charged investors a 3% dealer manager fee of up to 3% of gross offering proceeds.  Such high commission and fees act as an immediate “drag” on an investment.

Published on:

investing in real estate through a limited partnershipInvestors in numerous non-traded REITs and real estate limited partnerships may have recently encountered difficulty in exiting their investment position through redemption of shares with the sponsor.  As we have highlighted in several previous blog posts, non-traded REITs and similar limited partnership investments (often sold via private placement), are extremely complex and risky investments.

Unlike exchange traded REITs that trade on deep and liquid national securities exchanges, publicly registered non-traded REITs are sold through an offering or successive offerings to the retail investing public, often over the course of several years.  Once the offering has closed, investors may find that their ability to redeem shares with the sponsor is severely restricted, or in some instances, outright suspended.  This is particularly problematic for retail investors who quite often were steered into the investment by a financial advisor who, in some instances, may have failed to fully disclose the nature of the investment, including its illiquid nature.

In the same vein, investments in real estate limited partnerships are often conducted via a private placement, pursuant to Regulation D as promulgated by the SEC.  As a general rule, a private placement investment in real estate carries with it many of the same risks embedded in investing in non-traded REITs.  These risks include: (1) high fees and commissions, (2) a general lack of transparency concerning the investment (while publicly registered non-traded REITs will typically provide more information than a private placement, the fact remains that many non-traded REITs are structured as blind pools, and accordingly an investor will not be able to readily ascertain the nature of the underlying property portfolio), and (3) difficulty exiting an illiquid investment position.

Published on:

financial charts and stockbrokerOn May 1, 2018, FINRA Department of Enforcement entered into a settlement via Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (“AWC”) with Respondent Laidlaw & Company (UK) LTD. (“Laidlaw”) (BD# 119037).  Without admitting or denying any wrongdoing — Laidlaw consented to a public censure by FINRA, the imposition of a $25,000 fine, as well as agreeing to furnish FINRA with a written certification that Laidlaw’s “[s]ystems, policies and procedures with respect to each of the areas and activities cited in this AWC are reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws, regulations and rules.”

In connection with its investigation surrounding the matter, FINRA Enforcement alleged that “From April 2013 through December 2015… Laidlaw failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system and written supervisory procedures (“WSPs”) reasonably designed to ensure that” Laidlaw registered “representatives’ recommendations of leveraged and inverse exchange traded funds (“Non-Traditional ETFs”) complied with applicable securities laws and NASD and FINRA Rules.”

Non-Traditional ETFs are extremely complicated and risky financial products.  Non-Traditional ETFs are designed to return a multiple of an underlying benchmark or index (or both) over the course of one trading session (typically, a single day).  Therefore, because of their design, Non-Traditional ETFs are not intended to be held for more than a single trading session, as enunciated by FINRA through previous regulatory guidance:

Contact Information