Español Inner

Articles Posted in FINRA Arbitration

Published on:

Building DemolishedInvestors in Griffin Capital Essential Asset REIT, Inc. (“Griffin Essential”), may have substantial losses based on a tender offer to purchase shares for $6.89 a share — or $3.11 a share less than the offering price of $10 a share.  As recently reported, on December 1, 2017, third-party real estate investment firm MacKenzie Capital Management (“MacKenzie”) made an unsolicited tender offer for shares of Griffin Essential at $6.89 per share, in cash.  The Board of Directors of Griffin Essential has recommended that its shareholders reject the offer.  However, the Board also advised that, as of September 30, 2017, its share redemption program (“SRP”) for 2017 was fully subscribed, thus leaving investors seeking liquidity via redemption with little recourse.

Griffin Essential is a Maryland REIT incorporated in August 2008 for purposes of acquiring a portfolio of geographically diverse single tenant properties across a wide range of industries.  From 2009 – 2014, Griffin Essential conducted a series of offerings in connection with its capital raise.  In aggregate, the non-traded REIT issued 126,592,885 shares of common stock for gross proceeds of approximately $1.3 billion.  As a publicly registered non-traded REIT, Griffin Essential 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.

Investors who purchased shares of Griffin Essential through the offering acquired their shares for approximately $10 per share.  Therefore, it would appear that investors who participated in the MacKenzie tender offer incurred substantial losses on their initial investment in excess of 30% (exclusive of commissions and distributions).

Published on:

money whirlpoolIn response to the low interest rate environment that has prevailed for a decade, many brokerage firms — including well-known wirehouses such as Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and UBS — have reportedly recommended various options strategies to their customers as supposedly safe and efficient mechanisms to enhance income.  However, when stock markets turn volatile, these strategies can quickly spiral into unexpected investment losses for retail investors — as recently occurred during a spike in stock market volatility that peaked on February 5, 2018.

Despite the risks embedded in options, particularly naked options, brokerage firms like Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and UBS have reportedly presented some retail investors with opportunities to engage in sophisticated, highly complex options strategies, often fraught with risk.  One such options strategy, marketed in some instances as a yield enhancement strategy (or “YES”), involves writing so-called iron condors through S&P 500 derived options.  In some instances, investors are steered into such strategies seeking the option premium income, without actually understanding the risks associated with options trading strategies.

When it comes to yield enhancement options strategies, perhaps the most commonly used financial instrument is the extremely well-known S&P 500 Index (“SPX”), a stock index based on the 500 largest companies whose stock is listed for trading on the NYSE or NASDAQ.  The Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”) is the exclusive provider of SPX options.  In this regard, CBOE provides a range of SPX options with varying settlement ranges and dates, including A.M. and P.M. settlement, weekly options and end-of-month options.  Significantly, because SPX is a theoretical index, an investor who engages in options trading using SPX will necessarily be engaging in uncovered, or naked, options trading.

Published on:

Oil Drilling RigsInvestors in various oil drilling programs offered by Vista Resources, Inc. (“Vista”), may be able to recover losses sustained on their investment through arbitration before FINRA, in the event that the investment was recommended by a financial advisor who lacked a reasonable basis for the recommendation, or if the nature of the investment — including its risk components — was misrepresented by the advisor and his or her brokerage firm.  Founded in 1987, Vista is headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA.  Over the course of the past several decades, Vista has managed roughly 60 drilling programs, typically structured as industry joint ventures or limited partnerships.

Included among Vista’s recent programs are: Vista Drilling Program 2011-1, Vista Drilling Program 2012, and Vista Drilling Program 2013-2 (collectively, “Vista Programs”).  These Vista Programs are extremely complex and risky investment vehicles, for a number of reasons.  To begin, these private oil and gas investments charge very high fees to investors.  For example, Vista charges investors an approximate 10% up-front commission.  In addition, Vista charges an approximate 12% markup fee on the costs associated with drilling for productive oil reserves.  Such high up-front commissions and fees act as an immediate “drag” on the initial investment, and present significant risk to the uninformed retail investor.

Further, these Vista Programs are allowed to use up to 20% of investor capital to drill speculative exploratory wells.  A broker recommending such an investment has a duty to inform the investor of such risks, and of the capital-intensive and speculative nature of oil drilling as an investment.  Moreover, the brokerage firm — and by extension, the broker — recommending such an investment, have a duty to first conduct due diligence on the investment.

Published on:

investing in real estate through a limited partnershipInvestors in NorthStar Healthcare Income, Inc. (“NHI REIT”) are likely facing substantial principal losses based on recently reported transactions.  Although liquidity is limited, NHI REIT investors may be able to sell shares through a limited and fragmented secondary market.  Recently, NHI REIT shares were listed for sale on a secondary platform at $6.70 per share.  Thus, for investors who bought in through the IPO at $10 per share, it would appear that they have sustained losses of roughly 1/3 on their initial capital outlay (these losses are exclusive of distribution income received to date).

NHI REIT investors also may have arbitration claims to be pursued before FINRA, if their investment was recommended by a financial advisor who lacked a reasonable basis for the recommendation, or if the nature of the investment was misrepresented by the broker.  According to its prospectus, NHI REIT was formed as a Maryland corporation in October 2010 for the purpose of acquiring, originating and managing a “[d]iversified portfolio of equity and debt investments in healthcare real estate, with a focus on the mid-acuity senior housing sector.”

Headquartered in New York, New York, NHI REIT is a publicly registered non-traded real estate investment trust.  As of November 2015, NHI REIT’s portfolio consisted of 20 investments, including 16 equity investments with a total cost of $942.7 million, and 4 debt investments with a principal amount of $145.9 million.  Pursuant to its offering, which closed December 17, 2015, NHI REIT offered up to $500,000,000 in shares of its common stock at a price of $10.20 per share, in addition to $200,000,000 in shares offered under the REIT’s amended and restated distribution reinvestment plan, at a price of $9.69 per share.

Published on:

stock market chartFormer financial advisor Scott William Palmer (CRD# 817586), who was most recently affiliated with Janney Montgomery Scott LLC (“Janney”) (BD# 463), has voluntarily consented to a bar from the securities industry pursuant to a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver & Consent (“AWC”) accepted by FINRA Enforcement on April 10, 2018.  Without admitting or denying any wrongdoing, the Hackensack, NJ-based former broker consented to the industry bar following his June 13, 2017 termination from employment by Janney.

Mr. Palmer’s career in the securities industry dates back to 1973, and included stints at now defunct Darby & Co., Dean Witter, Citigroup, and — most recently, Janney — from 2007-2017.  In June 2017, Janney permitted Mr. Palmer to resign; according to publicly available information and as disclosed on Mr. Palmer’s Form U-5, his discharge from employment was due to Janney’s “Loss of confidence related to complaint disclosure history.”

FINRA records indicate that Mr. Palmer has been subject to twelve customer disputes, including one case in which relief was denied, and another case that settled in July 2016 for $75,000 alleging that Mr. Palmer had made unsuitable investments in the customer’s account.  According to FINRA BrokerCheck, of the ten customer complaints pending arbitration, a number of them allege that Mr. Palmer purportedly recommended unsuitable investments in certain energy stocks, and further, overconcentrated certain customers in energy sector investments.

Published on:

Apartment BuildingInvestors in Benefit Street Partners Realty Trust, Inc. (“Benefit Street” or the “Company”) may have arbitration claims to be pursued before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), if their investment was recommended by a financial advisor who lacked a reasonable basis for the recommendation, or if the nature of the investment was misrepresented by the financial advisor.  Benefit Street was formerly known as Realty Finance Trust; however, in September 2016, Realty Finance appointed Benefit Street Partners (“BSP”) as its new advisor, replacing former sponsor AR Global Investments.

Benefit Street is a publicly registered, non-traded real estate investment trust (“REIT”) that originates, acquires and manages a diversified portfolio of commercial real estate debt secured by properties located in the United States.  Benefit Street is managed by BSP, a credit-focused alternative asset manager with over $20 billion of assets under management.  Benefit Street commenced its operations in November 2012, and raised $786 millions in investor equity prior to closing its offering in January 2016.  As of September 2016, the Company’s portfolio consisted of 73 loans and 7 CMBS investments.

In the years following the 2008 financial crisis, many retail investors were steered into investing in non-traded REITs such as Benefit Street by their broker or money manager based on the investment’s income-producing potential, in addition to the investment’s purported negative correlation to market volatility.  Unfortunately, however, many investors were not informed of the complexities and risks associated with non-traded REITs, including the investment’s high fees (as high as 15% of the initial capital investment in some instances) and illiquid nature.

Published on:

financial charts and stockbrokerOn March 27, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced formal charges against Wedbush Securities Inc. (“Wedbush”, CRD# 877) with respect to allegations that the broker-dealer failed to supervise its employee, Ms. Timary Delorme (f/k/a Timary Koller) (“Delorme”).  Based on its investigation, the SEC alleged Wedbush ignored numerous red flags indicating that Ms. Delorme — who has been affiliated with Wedbush as a registered representative since 1981 — was purportedly involved in a manipulative penny stock trading scheme with Izak Zirk Englebrecht, a/k/a Zirk De Maison “(“Englebrecht”).

As alleged by the SEC, Mr. Englebrecht engaged in manipulative trading, commonly referred to as “pump and dumps”, through the use of various thinly traded microcap penny stocks.  According to the SEC’s allegations, Ms. Delorme purchased stocks at Englebrecht’s behest in certain customer accounts, and in turn received undisclosed material benefits.  Moreover, the SEC’s findings suggest that Wedbush ignored numerous red flags associated with Ms. Delorme’s alleged involvement in the scheme, including a customer email outlining her involvement, as well as several FINRA arbitrations regarding her penny stock trading activity.

In response to the red flags, Wedbush purportedly conducted two investigations into Ms. Delorme’s conduct.  The SEC has characterized Wedbush’s investigation as “flawed and insufficient”, and that ultimately the brokerage firm failed to take appropriate action to address the alleged misconduct.  The SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings against Wedbush charges that the broker-dealer failed to reasonably supervise its broker, Ms. Delorme.  The matter will come before an administrative law judge, who will hear the case and prepare an initial decision — there have not yet been any findings of misconduct.

Published on:

Money in WastebasketAs recently reported, the Board of Directors of The Parking REIT, Inc. have unanimously authorized a suspension of the company’s cash distributions and stock dividends, effective immediately.  In conjunction with filing a Form 8-K with the SEC on March 23, 2018, the company issued a press release indicating, inter alia, that “The Board is focused on preserving capital in order to maintain sufficient liquidity to continue to operate the business and maintain compliance with debt covenants, including minimum liquidity covenants…”

Headquartered in Las Vegas, NV, The Parking REIT (f/k/a MVP REIT II, Inc.) holds a real estate investment portfolio consisting of 44 parking facilities across 15 states, with an estimated aggregate asset value of $280 million.  As a publicly registered non-traded REIT, The Parking REIT is a particularly complex and risky investment vehicle.  Among the risks associated with non-traded REITs are their characteristically high up-front fees and commissions (as high as 15% in some instances), as well their illiquid nature.

Unlike exchange traded REITs, non-traded REITs do not trade on a national securities exchange, and therefore cannot be readily sold and resold on a liquid exchange.  Further, as is the case with The Parking REIT, investors may unfortunately encounter a scenario where the Board elects to reduce or altogether suspend distributions and/or dividends.  For many investors in non-traded REITs, one of their primary reasons for investing in the first instance has to do with the enhanced yield often associated with non-traded REITs.  However, when the prospect of steady income through distributions disappears, the investor is left with an illiquid investment position that cannot be easily or readily exited.

Published on:

Stealing MoneyThe Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reportedly has settled charges against the operators of a real estate investment business that caused millions in loses to investors.  Up to 300 investors may have lost money on interests in a fund known as Alaska Financial Company III, LLC (“AFC III”), which two individuals named Tobias Preston and Charles Preston sold to investors via their company McKinley Mortgage Co. LLC (“McKinley”).

The SEC accused defendants of falsely portraying AFC III as a safe investment and reporting that it had profitable operations.  However, according to the SEC, in reality AFC III was insolvent and unable to make interest payments as they came due.  According to the SEC, although a portion of the raised funds were invested as promised to investors, Messrs. Preston and McKinley diverted millions of dollars in proceeds of outside investments to fund business and personal expenses as well as McKinley’s operations.

AFC III has made so-called Form D filings with the SEC since 2013 stating that AFC III qualifies for an exemption from registration of its securities offering under Rule 506(c), which allows for general solicitation of investors, such as through AFC III’s website and social media platforms, but limits sales to accredited investors.  As a general rule, offers of securities to the public (which includes offers made over the internet) must be registered with the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933.  However, under federal securities law, the SEC recognizes certain instances where companies seeking to raise capital are exempt from registering securities. Securities offerings exempt from registration are sometimes referred to as “private placements.”  AFC III sought to be treated as exempt from registration by the SEC and was marketed as a private placement.

Published on:

money blowing in windMassachusetts reportedly has begun an investigation concerning whether Wells Fargo Advisors engaged in unsuitable recommendations, inappropriate referrals, and other actions related to its sales of certain investment products to customers.  Recently, Wells Fargo disclosed that it is evaluating whether its personnel and registered representatives may have made inappropriate recommendations and referrals concerning 401(K) rollovers and alternative investments.

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin said the state would examine Wells Fargo’s own internal probe and wants to ensure that any Massachusetts investors who were impacted by “unsuitable recommendations” would be “made whole.” He noted that while moving investors toward wealth management accounts brings “more revenues to firms,” these accounts are “not suitable for all investors.”

Industry observers say that major stock brokerage firms have increasingly steered customers to accounts with recurring management fees based on a percentage of assets under management, rather than transaction-based commissions. As Barron’s magazine reports, referring clients to managed accounts tends to earn fee-based advisors significantly more over the long term.

Contact Information